Shipping: Irish Lights

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What negotiations they are undertaking with the Government of the Republic of Ireland as recommended by the Brooke report, Review of Funding for the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the recommendation in the Review of Funding for the Commissioners of Irish Lights that there should be negotiations between the two Governments to make early decisions on a lasting funding solution. A constructive meeting between officials took place in Dublin on 1 May. It is too early at this stage to say when negotiations will be completed and a new agreement put in place.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that full Answer. I congratulate the British and Irish Governments on commissioning this joint report 84 years after independence. Is he aware that ships entering British ports are still making a contribution of about £8.5 million a year in maintaining Irish Lights? Notwithstanding the information he has given about that very welcome first meeting, when will there be a decision so that this inequitable contribution can finally stop?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am unused to being congratulated in government but I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. It is difficult to predict when the negotiations will finish. They will have to consider the running costs of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and items such as the funding of ships and other large assets, redundancy, trading between the three GLAs and commercial income.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There are confusing figures about how much the UK might be subsidising Irish lighthouses, but if it is near £8 million a year and has been going on, I am told, for something like 20 years, that amounts to £160 million. Would not that have kept a lot of post offices open?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am delighted to receive that question because one of the points I wanted to make was to describe the Irish Lights system and lighthouses in general. There is no provision whatever from the UK Exchequer. In the best possible tradition of our Government and the generality of UK government, the users pay. The contribution is paid for by users at 35p a tonne. That means that only about 0.3 per cent of the total shipping costs for the deep-sea service are paid for this. That is good value for money at no cost to the UK taxpayer.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, in declaring an interest as an elder brother of Trinity House and welcoming the fact that negotiations are going on with the Government of Ireland, which is a special case in point, are we not in danger of straying into difficult and possibly counterproductive waters when comparing contributions, bearing in mind that the light-due contributions from England outweigh those from Scotland by 12:1? Is it not a fact that the three general lighthouse authorities provide an integrated service for the safety of navigation and operate a system whereby ships can be used by one another as and when required?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I will not venture into the Scottish/English question because I am not that courageous, but I agree that there are many benefits in having an integrated light service provided by all three authorities. Many ships coming to British ports pass through Irish waters. It is important that they are protected in an integrated way. Having entirely separate systems in the Republic and the UK would be likely to cost more.
	It should be noted that the Commissioners of Irish Lights, which has existed for more than 200 years in one form or another, is a great example of a whole-Ireland body that has served both countries well from the creation of the Republic of Ireland and right through the Troubles.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, drew attention to the fact that the negotiations with the Irish Government are protracted. The Minister may recall that I have asked several times when negotiations with the Irish Government over the repeated breaches in road-safety law in north Wales will be concluded. Will he confirm that there is some sense of urgency, because British ships and hauliers are put at a significant competitive disadvantage by the present arrangements?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the competitive disadvantage has been alleged in many cases, but the most recent study by the Department for Transport concludes that there would be no change in shipping patterns even if the light charges were to be zero. In fact, the impact of any negotiation would be at best 10 per cent of light charges. I am not seized of the argument that there is a significant competitive disadvantage.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, it is a self-evident proposition from the Brooke report that we should try to work towards a ratio of 85:15 instead of the present 70:30. Does the Minister agree that nothing should be done which might affect the close co-operation between the three general lighthouse authorities, which between them, as has already been said, provide an integrated service throughout the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland? That close co-operation is exemplified in research and development, which has reduced the costs to shipping during the past many years. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned the intership agreement. Quite recently, I saw an Irish vessel operating in Scotland.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: I asked the Minister whether he agreed with me.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, in so much as I heard the question, I agree. There is no denying that the integrated service offered by the three general lighthouse authorities is essential. Any arrangement must maintain either that integrated service or a service which is as effective and cost-effective.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I totally agree with the Minister. Other noble Lords and I have declared an interest, but does the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have an interest to declare whenever he asks these Questions?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, that is not a question for Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, how many lights have the British maintained around the world?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I work very hard at this brief, but the answer to that is not in it. I will write to the noble Lord.

Maldives: Elections

Lord Naseby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What practical help they will give to the Maldives to ensure free and fair elections in the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the United Kingdom is providing financial support for Commonwealth efforts to improve the Maldivian legislative electoral framework. Free, fair and credible elections in the Maldives are a crucial element of democratic reform there, as my noble friend Lord Malloch-Brown emphasised to Dr Mohamed Asim, the high commissioner, in March. When our high commissioner to Sri Lanka and the Maldives presented his credentials on 8 May, President Gayoom gave assurances of his commitment to the elections.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that eight political parties are already registered and 150,000 electors voting across nearly 200 islands? One of the imperatives for a free and fair election is to ensure that the parliamentary process can run normally. As he will be aware, I put a proposal to Her Majesty's Government that a senior Clerk from the House of Commons should be on loan for a period of perhaps four months to assist the Maldivian Government to ensure that that happens. Perhaps I may also ask the Government to ensure that funds are made available for the preparation prior to elections. These elections are so important for this country which is moving from autocratic rule to fully fledged democracy. I request that Her Majesty's Government give them the most support possible.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who is chairman of the All-Party Group on the Maldives and is now, I think, a very well known figure in the islands. I know that he has talked to my noble friend. I can tell him that we are considering a request from the Maldivian Government to provide a parliamentary expert to advise on parliamentary procedures. It is a little early to say whether that will happen but the idea is very much being taken on board. I also take his point that these are the first multiparty elections in the Maldives. The House will be delighted by that progress. We will do everything within our power to ensure that the legislative electoral framework is improved in the Maldives.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, what assurances has the Minister sought from the Government of the Maldives that they will establish, as they promised to do, a fair and independent elections commission well before the elections? Can the EU send electoral monitors to monitor the process? Can anything be done to ensure that there will be a free press with equal access for all candidates by the time of the elections?

Lord Bach: My Lords, on election observers, the European Commission has agreed to field an assessment mission which will allow the EU to make an informed statement on the conduct of the presidential elections, the first elections to be held. Subject to an evaluation mission, the Commonwealth, of which the Maldives is a member, is also likely to send observers. We strongly support international monitoring and will look to join an international observation mission as short-term observers too. We will do all that we can to ensure that these are free elections. They are, of course, the Maldivians' own elections.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, while I am sure that free and fair elections in the Maldives are close to the heart of everyone in this House, will the Minister ensure that we have free and fair elections in this country by implementing the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and of two judges, who described the present systems for postal voting as fraudulent, worthy only of a banana republic?

Lord Bach: My Lords, some might say—perhaps the whole House would say—that that was wide of the mark of this Question, by perhaps 10,000 miles. At the same time the noble Lord is such a distinguished Member of this House that I can say that we are considering the matters he has mentioned.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, returning to the Question, will the Minister stick to his brief and his line that the Commonwealth is probably the best instrument through which to ensure free and fair elections in the Maldives? If every other international organisation starts sending monitoring teams as well, the islands, which are very small, will become quite unnecessarily crowded.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord's enthusiasm for the Commonwealth, which we share, is well known in the House. I do not think that there is any danger of too many people going to the Maldives for these elections.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have for reform of the House of Lords

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government plan to publish a White Paper on Lords reform before the Summer Recess.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I welcome. I also welcome the consideration of the draft Civil Service Bill of 2004, which had been expected in many Statements to this House over the past 10 years. It states that there will be two special advisers in the Prime Minister's Office who can authorise expenditure and have supervision over civil servants. How does my noble friend reconcile the role of civil servants, who for 150 years have been responsible to Ministers, but who are now subordinate to two special advisers? On the issue of an elected or partially elected second Chamber, there could be an unbridgeable conflict between such a Chamber and the House of Commons. Is it not clear that Parliament could be faced with a problem not seen since 1909, when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George's Budget?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not recognise the problem in the terms suggested by my noble friend. The cross-party group has considered many of these matters in informing the Government's construction of a White Paper but not that particular one.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, has the amiable consensus between the Front Benches and the working group yet developed to a point at which the Government share the view of the Leader of the Opposition that House of Lords reform would be a project best deferred until the third Parliament after this one?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not for me to answer for the Leader of the Opposition—although long may he continue in that esteemed role. The cross-party group talks have been constructive and we will produce a White Paper before the Summer Recess. We hope to reach a consensus, which we hope will be reflected in party manifestos. It would then be possible for a Bill to be brought before Parliament after the next election.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, the Minister will recall that the Leader of the House wrote to all Members of this House inviting them to submit views on these issues. Will he tell the House how many responses have been received and, in particular, whether everyone now accepts the primacy of the House of Commons—in which case, any starting point for the Government's White Paper must be on the basis of the votes of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons last year.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that following the letter from the Lord President, there have been three formal representations—two papers from two separate groups of Peers and one letter to me from an individual Peer. Those communications have been extremely valuable and have been made available to the cross-party group.
	As far as primacy is concerned, there were votes in both Houses last March. There was somewhat of a disagreement between the House of Commons and this House. Inevitably, on that position, the Commons has primacy.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, since this House has not been given the privilege of knowing what happens in the cross-party group, will the Minister assure us, following the repeated assurances that we have already been given, that the White Paper will state that at least 20 per cent of a reformed House of Lords will be independent?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, work in the cross-party group is being taken forward on the basis of the two votes in the Commons in favour of both a 100 per cent and an 80 per cent elected House. Therefore, it is intended that both options will appear in the White Paper. Clearly, this is still work in progress, but the work has been undertaken in the light of those two votes.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, surely the use of the term "cross-party" is a misnomer as the group consists of Front-Bench representatives who do not represent the views of those on the Back Benches in this House. Why do the Government take the view that it is in the public interest that the proceedings of this cross-party group should be kept secret?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the membership of the cross-party group, it does not seem to me exceptional that leaders from all three parties should be invited to join it. That is how consensus will be created between the political parties.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have debated this matter on many occasions. I suspect we will not all come to the same view. The original cross-party group, which led to the February 2007 White Paper and to the votes in both Houses, was based on the coming together of representatives of the leadership of the three main political parties and we decided to continue with that process.
	On the group's proceedings, and thinking back to the noble Lord's distinguished period as a Minister, I have not always seen him as someone who has championed openness in meetings between groups which lead to policy decisions. As regards reaching agreement, surely he would accept that the members of the cross-party group should be allowed to get on with debating these matters. The White Paper will be out soon and I am sure that it will be subject to extensive debate, not least within your Lordships' House.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend's experience mirrors my own in any way. In decades of knocking on people's doors and canvassing, I have still to meet someone who says that what troubles them most about politics is the lack of progress on Lords reform. By all means let us carry on talking, but can he reassure me that Lords reform will not figure prominently in any future legislative programme?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we talk of little else but Lords reform in Kings Heath. Of course, I would not claim that Lords reform is the number one political priority for the public in this country. None the less, it is a very important matter. Reform of your Lordships' House could enhance the democratic arrangements in this country.

Noble Lords: Oh.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the fact is that this House does exceptionally valuable work. However, if it were elected, there can be no question that it would have increased legitimacy. After the work of the cross-party group, there was a White Paper which led to votes and the House of Commons voted for an all or mostly elected House. Surely we have a responsibility to bring before Parliament a White Paper which reflects how those decisions can be taken forward.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when we see the White Paper it will deal with the distant future? In view of that, will the Government consider adopting the sensible proposals in my Bill?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had two very enjoyable days debating the noble Lord's Bill and I look forward to many more. The fact is that we have the prospect of political consensus on Lords reform; we have the White Paper; we have the possibility of manifestos that will, in large measure, reflect the consensus within the cross-party group; and we have the opportunity to bring forward major legislation on Lords reform after the next election. That is the process to which we should stick.

Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, when the Minister says that he looks forward to further days in Committee debating the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does that represent a government commitment to give extra time to that Bill? Will the Minister say whether the consensus, constructed in the way that he has described, should be regarded as a broad or a narrow consensus?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is as broad as the noble Lord wishes it to be. On the matter of time, that is not in the hands of the Government, but of course I stand ever ready to debate Lords reform on every occasion when it is presented to your Lordships' House.

Lebanon

Baroness Northover: My Lords, with the permission of the House and in the absence of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Government the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper:
	What steps they are taking to encourage a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the ongoing violence in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon over the past week. We fully support the high-level Arab League mission that arrived in Lebanon today. The UN Security Council, under British presidency, addressed the situation last Thursday. Informal discussions have continued since then, and we are working towards a formal meeting this week to ensure strong UN backing for efforts to restore calm and support democratic politics in Lebanon.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Given the fragility of Lebanon and the danger of it sliding back into civil war, does he agree that we should not do as we did in 2006, but this time should urge mediation and recognition of the real concerns on all sides in this dispute? Does he agree that we should encourage Syrian-Israeli negotiations, thus far blocked by the United States, so that these countries are no longer tempted to see Lebanon as their battleground?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are, as I say, deeply concerned by the violence. We think that the first thing that must happen is that the violence must come to a complete end; it is hurting the Lebanese people and, as the noble Lady suggests, destabilising the region. All armed forces should withdraw from the streets and allow the Lebanese security forces to restore legitimate order. We are firm in our support for the Lebanese people and the Government of Prime Minister Siniora. Of course all sides must be listened to, but it is important to realise where this started.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Hezbollah's strength and credibility relies largely on its effectiveness in resisting Israeli encroachment last summer, but also because it is seen as the party that is most supportive of Palestinian rights under Israeli occupation? Would not the greatest encouragement to stability and peace in Lebanon be if there was seen to be effective and real progress towards the goal of Annapolis—in other words, real progress towards peace and stability in Palestine?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we all want to see Annapolis followed through and peace and stability in Palestine. However, it is important to realise that Hezbollah's actions in the current crisis, in particular the blockade of the airport and the port, have been unacceptable. The only way towards a solution to this particular crisis is if all parties come together for negotiations. Using our presidency of the United Nations, that is what we are determined to ensure.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we would agree with that. However, has the Minister—slightly contrary to what has been said—received reports that non-Arabic-speaking fighters are also operating with Hezbollah in a number of Christian areas and in west Beirut, indicating that the Iranians are far more involved than they claim to be? Has the Minister anything to say about that? Secondly, has he noted that Condoleezza Rice has said that the best way to support democracy in Beirut and in Lebanon is to support the Lebanese security force, the Lebanese army? Is that our view as well? That in itself is quite controversial given the role that it has played in the past few days.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have no knowledge of reports of foreign fighters fighting with Hezbollah. As the noble Lord will know, however, our belief is that Iran is closely connected with Hezbollah in a number of different ways. We believe that we should continue to give support to the Lebanese Government.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I bow to the others' expertise in this area. However, are Her Majesty's Government not more worried about the Palestinian issue and the growing rift between Sunni and Shia, which could spread over the whole of the Middle East? We tend to ignore this, but do we not do so at our peril?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. The rift between Sunni and Shia is to be found in the Lebanon as it is to be found in the rest of the Middle East. Our job must be to do our very best to make sure that that country has proper government and can move to choosing a new president as quickly as possible.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the issues of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine are closely interwoven, one discipline that the international community should adopt is to make any approaches on these issues as inclusive as possible? Does he not agree that it is essential to avoid driving people into the arms of extremists by talking only to our favourites?

Lord Bach: Yes, of course, my Lords. However, we do not think that it is right and proper to have dealings with people who use violence as a weapon of first resort. We have attempted over a number of years to have contacts with Hezbollah, but we feel that the blame for the present serious situation in the Lebanon must be put down to the actions that it took in the middle of last week.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that Britain alone has limited influence over the Lebanese situation. Can he tell us with which other Governments and through which other frameworks Her Majesty's Government are primarily working?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord will know better than me that the countries with the greatest historical influence in the Lebanon are France and the United States. We are working very closely with both those countries, but we are also working closely with all EU ambassadors in Lebanon. Our presidency of the United Nations is an important factor in this, and we are dealing with other members of the Security Council in the hope, as I said earlier, of getting a formal meeting later this week. We are working very hard indeed on the issue.

Education and Skills Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Government: Legislative Programme

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the draft legislative programme made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, building a more prosperous Britain and a fairer Britain is the purpose of the draft legislative programme published today for debate in this House and in the country. In this Statement I will focus on both the immediate action the Government are taking to help to steer the economy safely through the current global economic problems and on the changes, including a new welfare reform Bill and a new education and skills Bill, that are needed to make Britain a fairer, more prosperous society and to meet the challenges of the future.
	"Our immediate priority for the coming Session—at a time when food and fuel bills are rising and mortgages are more difficult to obtain—is to help family finances. In the next few weeks we will set out the elements of our economic plan as we steer our economy safely through the global downturn, the credit crunch and international oil and food price rises.
	"Legislation in the Queen's Speech on the economy will include a banking Bill so that Britain underpins its banking system with the best protection for depositors. In addition to action that we will take on fuel bills, to help small firms' finance, and internationally on oil prices and food prices—and the benefit we gain from three-year public sector pay deals now covering 1.5 million workers—my right honourable friend the Housing Minister is today announcing: a £200 million fund, reallocating money to purchase unsold new homes and then rent them to social tenants or make them available on a shared-ownership basis; £100 million for shared-equity schemes to allow more first-time buyers to purchase newly built homes on the open market; and, for the first time, an offer of shared-equity housing open to applications from all first-time buyers, subject to a household income limit.
	"The Queen's Speech will also introduce a savings Bill, not just to help home ownership but wealth ownership generally, giving 8 million people on low incomes access to a national savings scheme, with each pound saved matched by a contribution from the Government.
	"On housing we will look at whether further action is required in light of the study by the Office of Fair Trading into the sale and leaseback market and the rise in second-charge mortgages to ensure that what should happen does happen—that consumers are treated fairly.
	"With a second public sector efficiency review now under way, we are setting the objective of greater efficiency and value for money in public administration as we move to achieve the lowest Civil Service numbers since 1945.
	"Advancing our enterprise agenda, the Government will also consult on the idea of regulatory budgets—for the first time giving departments that seek new regulation a strict annual limit on what they can impose.
	"As well as taking decisive action to help families and businesses weather the current economic storms, the Government have a duty to equip this country to meet the challenges of the future, with welfare and education reform to help people rise as far as their talents can take them; and, in the education, health, policing and community empowerment Bills we are announcing today, a commitment to new standards of excellence in services and to the transfer of more power and resources to parents, patients and citizens—measures which, alongside our constitutional renewal Bill, reshape for a new age the respective roles and responsibilities of citizen, community and government.
	"In the next two decades the size of the world economy will double and 1 billion new skilled or professional jobs will be created. The new legislation we propose is founded on the new economic truth that the countries that have the best skills and the best education systems will reap the greatest rewards. So attaining the highest standards of education, as we expand opportunity, is the theme of our education Bill for schools and lifelong learning in the coming Session.
	"First, it is unfair to consign any child to a poor school or even one that is coasting along without ambition to do better. So, having legislated this year for education to 18, there will be a second education Bill to support our plan to ensure that, by 2011, no school is underperforming. There will be the first independent qualifications system to guarantee to parents the highest standards and there will be more power for parents to receive regular information on their children's progress. We are expanding academies and strengthening reform to the accountability of schools to parents, giving them a bigger say on how to raise standards and whether new schools are needed in an area. It is also unfair—and a threat to our country's future prosperity—that many qualified young people are still denied access to an apprenticeship. By deciding to legislate, for the first time, for the statutory right of every suitably qualified young person to obtain an apprenticeship, we expect the numbers of people starting apprenticeships—just 65,000 a year 10 years ago—to rise by 2011 to over 200,000, three times as many.
	"Every adult should have the right to a second chance in education—to have the chance to make the most of their potential. It is not only a threat to prosperity but unfair that adults in work or looking for work are denied the opportunity to get the training they need to advance their careers, or even the time needed to do a course. So my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Skills is proposing today, for the first time, a major new change in workplace rights that will benefit both employees and employers, giving every worker the right to request time to train. We will also offer every adult a personal skills account so that they can access the training they need, with resources tailored to the individual.
	"Leaving the unemployed without the skills they need to obtain work is costly for our prosperity and unfair to both benefit claimants and those who pay taxes. As part of the next stage of welfare reform, emphasising obligations as well as rights, the Secretary of State for Work will legislate in the coming Session for a duty on the unemployed to have their skill needs assessed and to acquire skills. We will consult on further radical reforms to ensure that no one with the ability to work is trapped on benefits for life. Those who can work should work, so new and existing incapacity benefit claimants will be required to go through a medical assessment and will be given a personalised programme to help them back into work.
	"Fair treatment also means respecting that people need flexible arrangements to care for their children, especially as evidence now shows that flexible work is no obstacle to business success, so fairness and efficiency can advance together. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business will announce tomorrow that we will take forward the recommendations of the Walsh report to extend the right to flexible working to parents of older children. We will consult on the details of implementation with the aim of introducing the new rights from next April.
	"Since last year we have secured cleaner hospitals in the NHS, better access to GPs and progress on waiting times. It is right, as we celebrate 60 years of the NHS next month, to introduce a new NHS reform Bill to continue the change and renewal of the NHS, equip it to offer a higher standard of care, focus it on prevention as well as treatment and make it more accountable to local people, giving patients real power and control over the service that they receive. We will establish a constitution of the NHS that sets out what patients can expect to get from the health service, including entitlements to minimum standards of access, quality and safety. For the first time, payments to NHS hospitals will be adjusted according to patient satisfaction and health outcomes, deepening our commitment to a patient-focused NHS.
	"In the same way as we are tackling underperforming schools, we will take new powers, as part of a comprehensive NHS performance regime, to ensure that no healthcare provider falls below minimum standards. Just as we will consult in education on giving more rights to parents, we will bring forward radical proposals in health to put more power in the hands of patients, including new rights to information about their care, control of their own personal budgets and having more say over the decisions of their local primary care trust.
	"Just as we will give both parents and patients more control, so we will give social housing tenants more say—greater choice over where they live and new rights to independent information on landlords' performance. We will look at ways of rewarding good tenants and hold to account those who do not meet their responsibilities, as we crack down further on anti-social behaviour on our estates.
	"Protecting the safety of the British people is paramount for any Government. Since 1997, we have significantly increased the numbers of police men and women, and introduced new community support officers and new powers for police and the courts to target anti-social behaviour, burglary, car crime and street crime. We have also taken action against terrorism.
	"Our aim is not just a reduction in crime but that people feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods. One way forward, as with education and health, is to empower citizens, giving them more direct say on how crime is tackled in their areas.
	"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bring forward proposals for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness. We will legislate so that neighbourhood police teams have to meet tougher national standards to ensure the high visibility and responsiveness of local police and community support officers. Legislation will give the victims of crime more legal rights, including protection for vulnerable victims and witnesses of gun- and gang-related crime during investigations and trials. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will shortly set out further detailed plans to allow police time now spent on paperwork to be spent on the beat, liberating the police from needless red tape. She will announce new measures to improve police performance.
	"Organised crime, particularly in the areas where there are serious problems with drugs and illegal immigration, must be dealt with severely. It is right to close every loophole to prevent criminals retaining the proceeds of their crimes. The policing and crime reduction Bill will legislate to speed up the recovery and seizure of assets obtained through criminal acts.
	"If our crime policy is to punish and prevent, our migration policy is to ensure for Britain the benefits that migration brings while managing it securely and ensuring that expectations for newcomers are clear. We have already introduced the new Australian-style points system to ensure that only those who contribute can come into Britain, and integrated the vital work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UK Visas into a single border agency.
	"After a consultation which finished this week, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will legislate to put in place our new and tougher test for permanent residence or British citizenship. The requirements in law will be that newcomers learn English, play by the rules and show they are making an economic contribution to the UK. Only full citizens will get access to benefits or social housing. Newcomers will be required to pay into a migration impact fund to help local communities deal with changes in population.
	"We will also take new powers in legislation to enhance airport security and protect against terrorist acts at sea.
	"We will take further steps in the next Session of Parliament to safeguard and enhance our heritage and environment. For the first time in 30 years there will be legislation to increase protection of our historic sites and buildings. This will include reforms to the planning system to improve the protection of old buildings, and new rules to make it an offence to deal in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory.
	"We will consult in draft on the legislation necessary to implement the recommendations of the Pitt review into the 2007 floods and so better protect vulnerable communities in the future.
	"Having already legislated this Session as the first country in the world to put a legal limit on its carbon emissions, we will bring forward a Bill in the next Session to protect our seas and our shores, with new powers to designate marine conservation zones and to create a path around the whole of the English coastline, with public access for walking and other recreational activities.
	"Last year we announced new measures, including restricting the royal prerogative, to make the Government more accountable to Parliament; these will be taken forward in a constitutional renewal Bill. But we will go further and consult on a major shift of power directly to citizens themselves. My right honourable friend the Communities Secretary will set out proposals, to be taken forward through a new community empowerment Bill, to give people greater power to influence local decisions—local spending decisions, local council agendas and the use of local assets—that affect them.
	"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice will also publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords and details of our proposals to reform the system of party finance and expenditure. He will bring forward proposals for consultation on a Bill of rights and responsibilities.
	"We are committed to both flexibility and to fairness in the workplace and will do nothing that jeopardises jobs and businesses taking on workers. But most people agree that it is not fair that, even after months in the job, agency workers can currently be paid less than the staff they work alongside and, as a result, permanent staff can feel they are being unfairly undercut. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform plans to bring forward legislation, subject to an agreement between employers and employees, and in Europe, that will for the first time ensure new rules for fair treatment of agency workers here in Britain.
	"Discrimination anywhere is unacceptable and a new equality Bill will compel public bodies to take seriously the needs and requirements of both their workforce and the communities they serve, sending a clear message that in 21st-century Britain prejudice is no longer acceptable anywhere.
	"There will be a banking Bill to support financial stability; an education Bill to ensure that every school is a good school; an NHS Bill to improve the health service and entrench patients' rights; an immigration Bill, so that people can earn their citizenship; a welfare reform Bill to help people into work; and reforms on agency workers, skills and flexible working. These are the priorities, and I commend the Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement to the House. Perhaps I should congratulate her as well on ploughing her way through it. It was well briefed to the media last night, of course. It is called "Building a more prosperous Britain". You just have to tell that to the housewife who has just come home from shopping, the small businessman who has just filled up his car or the home owners terrified yesterday by the Housing Minister's forecasts on house prices. You do wonder whether government spin doctors ever meet anyone who lives in the real world. When I think of the truly terrible events in Burma and China or the shocking remarks of the President of Iran that the 60th anniversary celebrations of Israel will not save that country from what he calls annihilation, I feel that this desperate PR battle by the Prime Minister to win a by-election in a safe Labour seat gains some sense of proportion. I am not even sure that Parliament should be used as a stage prop for it.
	I said last year—and I feel even more so this year—that this exercise is just a simple gimmick. I happen to believe that anything that detracts from the gracious Speech or the prerogative of Her Majesty to set out Her Government's programme, when your Lordships' House is at the centre of the nation's affairs, is a very great pity. That may be an old-fashioned view, but it is one that I know, from speaking to noble Lords in all parts of the House, is widely shared. As I listened to this verbose utterance today and watched eyes glazing over all around the House, how I longed for the brevity of the gracious Speech. Of course, consultation on future policy programmes is sensible, but that is why we have Green Papers, White Papers and draft Bills. This exercise is a party-political media ploy that adds nothing.
	To say that we need it to improve consultation is, at best, a red herring and, at worst, misleading. Announcing future legislation in this way makes it harder, not easier, to listen to representations that mistaken ideas should be dropped. We all know why it happened last year. The Prime Minister planned an election and wanted to pre-empt a gracious Speech that would have had to await his campaign, but he has no reason to do so this year. Last year, we had the pre-Queen's Speech in July; this year it is in May. At this rate, next year it will be in March—and, no doubt, in election year of 2010, in January. It has nothing to do with good, orderly legislation. If only a fraction of this attention were given to post-legislative scrutiny, we would be far better off. Last year, we were told that citizens' juries would judge this Statement. Can the noble Baroness tell the House the verdict of those juries last year? I wonder if it coincided with the verdict of the millions of people who voted on 1 May.
	There was mention in this Statement of a subject dear to all of us: reform of your Lordships' House. The White Paper was mentioned, implying that publication has now been agreed by the Cabinet. Can the noble Baroness say if that is in fact so, and how long your Lordships' House will be kept waiting to see that White Paper? If the Government have ruled out legislation in this Parliament, that will be welcome news to very many of your Lordships.
	Of course, this Statement has some worthwhile ideas. After all, I recognise some of them. We have highlighted the shocking failure of this Government to tackle deep, underlying issues of poverty and deprivation, so talk of welfare reform is, yet again, good. Yet where are the policies to fight family breakdown, or to break open the monopoly of poor state education and allow new schools to open? Where are the policies to release the vitality of the voluntary sector? Where are the policies that unlock opportunity? Where are the benefit and tax changes that reward talent and hard work, and advance social mobility, instead of yet more top-down, bureaucratic tax credits that half of the population cannot understand?
	Where are the policies to allow GPs to make the right choices for their patients, instead of closing their surgeries and frogmarching them into super-centres dictated by the Government? Where are the policies to stop the early release of prisoners, or to tackle the tragedy of gun and knife crime among youngsters? It has been left to a Conservative Mayor of London to take an overdue initiative? Where are the policies to heal communities that are hurting, and to halt the destruction of Post Offices that is breaking the heart of communities across Britain?
	I heard none of those things, although I heard feeble attempts to copy Conservative policies on immigration, flexible working and exam regulation. It is hardly surprising that noble Lords opposite keep on asking us for more policy detail; next year, why does the noble Baroness not come over on this side, and let the real Conservative Party announce the ideas that are setting the agenda in modern politics?
	Incidentally, I did not hear any announcement of the idea that came from the leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place in response to the Queen's Speech last year. He asked for a Bill to provide for a referendum on our membership of the EU—the same issue that sent Mr Clegg storming out of the House of Commons. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord McNally, press the noble Baroness for that. Perhaps he has changed his mind, or perhaps she will confirm that the Liberal Democrats could lay an amendment to the Bill before the House for exactly what they wanted then.
	That brings me to the glaring inadequacy of this Statement: the one thing that will be recognised in your Lordships' House—with its unique role in revising legislation—more than anywhere else. It is that the Prime Minister is announcing next year's legislation before he has sorted out this year's. Would we not all be far better off if, instead of promising more Bills, we get Bills right in the first place? We are promised—this is no joke although it is, surely, unbelievable—another criminal justice Bill. Yet this year's Bill was written and rewritten as it went along, with whole chunks devoted to repealing legislation passed in 2003 that had never even been put into effect. This country desperately needs not more government and more legislation, but better government and less legislation.
	If I heard the noble Baroness correctly, the draft Queen's Speech promised a major Bill on education, but we have not even seen this year's Education and Skills Bill yet; after all, it arrived in this House just a few minutes ago. The Prime Minister promised a major Bill on housing; if that is so urgent, why do we not halt the existing Housing Bill, which has only just started its Committee stage, and look at recommitting it to include some of these bold new ideas? Or, are they just sound-bites rather than worked-out ideas? We are also promised some minor changes on planning law. Why are they not included in this Session's Planning Bill, which is still to reach your Lordships' House? Heaven knows, we could save parliamentary time by abandoning the absurd battle over 42 days' detention without trial.
	The picture is of a Government in chaos not only making it up as they go along, but unmaking it, too, as they go along. Ministers, like Homer's Penelope, increasingly weave a great tapestry one day then pull it all to pieces as soon as the day turns to dusk. No wonder public confidence in politics and trust in politicians to keep the promises they make has reached an all-time low. We stand ready—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does too—to agree a more orderly programme for dealing with legislation and any properly thought-out and urgent matters that are truly needed, but we should not and will not facilitate charades designed to boost a Prime Minister who has simply lost control, lost a sense of direction and lost the plot.

Lord McNally: My Lords, as is well known, I am more of a starry-eyed idealist than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, yet I, too, wonder what is the point of this Statement. I understand that this year we are to be spared an expensive government glossy, but perhaps the Lord President can tell us whether we will have the same as last year at public expense. It really is quite odd. I am glad to see that one question has someone scurrying to the Box—perhaps I should not give them ideas.
	I took the time to watch the Prime Minister delivering this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is quite right: you do not have to look at the name on it to know that this is a Gordon Brown Statement. It is overlong and overdetailed. Like one of those Heath Robinson machines with wheels, pistons and hammers going, you wonder what it represents. We know that the timing of the Statement is highly political—it has been rushed out 24 hours after yesterday's mini-Budget and is within days of a crucial by-election. But beyond all that, listening to the Prime Minister and looking at the Labour Party, one has to recall one of the two memorable phrases used by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont: "A Government in office, but not in power". It is worrying to see this. We had the Statement yesterday, and these two things have to be taken together. I wonder where the golden rule is now as the Government embark on an emergency economic policy that the Guardian today described as a crude and costly brand of economic populism which will build up more and more debt. The Chief Whip has just said, "You should read the Mail". So we know the paper of choice on that side of the House these days.
	The other thing that comes to mind is the old remark that Disraeli caught the Whigs bathing and stole their clothes. I think that the Conservatives should have one of those Metropolitan Police notices on all their offices to be on guard about their policies. Watching Mr Cameron presenting his case, I thought he had the Government banged to rights as he listed the items in this draft Queen's Speech and cross-referenced them with previous statements by the Conservative Party. It really is that much of a shambles.
	Does the Lord President agree that in spite of the increase in public spending on health and education, which we on these Benches supported when it was brought forward over the last few years, people feel no closer to being able to influence the decisions that affect their lives and families?
	The Prime Minister himself said that he had no intention of going back to the record housing repossessions that took place under the Tories, but how do the Government intend to avoid a repossessions tsunami in the next 18 months, given the predictions that the Housing Minister revealed yesterday in Downing Street? This is still a programme which emphasises that the man in Whitehall knows best. It is still a programme which believes that yet another piece of legislation will increase our security, rather than using existing powers and directing resources to effective policing and security services. It still lacks any sense of urgency about the need to modernise and make fit for purpose our system of government by devolving power and reinvigorating our democracy.
	I look at some of the faces on the Labour Benches. If the Lord President wants to know why Labour is in such a mess, I quote two headlines from today's Guardian. On page 22 it says:
	"TUC wants pay deal to match 3% rise in inflation".
	Page 25 says:
	"Executive salary package at Tesco increases by 18%".
	Working people believe that Labour has failed to stand up to corporate greed. It does not see any evidence that there will be any proper burden-sharing in the face of global economic difficulties. The people who took multi-million pound bonuses are the same people who come running to the taxpayer for bail-out when their chickens come home to roost. There is no confidence among Labour voters that Labour will hold corporate greed to proper account. Unless Labour recaptures some sense of social justice in what it does, and not simply in what it says, it is doomed, and deservedly so. Are we going to have a debate on this Statement?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that was a happy little contribution from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I am thrilled that my colleagues on both Benches enjoyed the Statement so much. I will try to answer some of the questions and issues that were raised. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I was a bit worried about the "housewife" bit. Traditionalism is one thing, but in my house I am very rarely the person who goes out to do the shopping. The most fascinating part was the idea that, somehow, the Statement had been rushed out with the programme to allow for the fact that we have a by-election next week. My noble friend the Chief Whip and I smiled at each other wryly. Noble Lords who have been in government know very well how long it takes to develop and design a programme in draft form in the way that we have done. It takes many weeks and months. Our worry was that we would not be able to get it out in the time that we had promised your Lordships' House and the other place.
	It is a valuable exercise, and it is important to set out as early as possible what we are thinking of. Noble Lords will recall—as I certainly can—how many times over the summer months, when we have been building up to a Queen's Speech, people in your Lordships' House and outside say that they want to know what we are doing. What are the proposals? What kinds of things might we do? How do they know that we have taken on board the kind of consultations that we have been doing over the past few months? This is the response to that. It affords us the opportunity to build on the work that we have been doing, to build on the consultations that we have already had, and offers the opportunity to do more. The citizens' juries of last year formed part of the publication that we made towards the end of the year about the responses that we had had. Indeed, through our regional Ministers, we will be carrying out more consultations this time.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that we may have stolen these ideas from the Conservatives. I do not recognise them. I recognise echoes, from the occasions when we have had any policy from the Conservative Party, of issues that concern us both. Of course, if we have lifted the proposals, we can all look forward to early nights with no Whips because the Conservative Party, I presume, will vote with the Government on all the proposals. After all, according to Mr Cameron—less so, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who I presume has read them all in great detail, we will have some form of consensus, which is often a very good thing. I wait with great interest to see whether I am right in my prediction.
	I have already indicated that we want to take these issues forward and debate them. We want to do that through the right consultation. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether there would be a debate. That is a subject for the usual channels. He can make his views known and I know that other noble Lords will. I will await the outcome. In a sense, I am the servant of the House and will do whatever noble Lords wish.
	On the specifics, we have to be clear. For example, what the accusation about GPs and surgeries stems from is the subject of the review of my noble friend Lord Darzi. We are looking at a process that has to be transparent, clinically evidenced, locally led and for the benefit of patients. As we celebrate 60 years of the National Health Service, we are seeking to go back to the principles of making sure that, through its new constitution, the NHS provides for our citizens and ensures that their expectations are met and they are clear about what is going to happen.
	I shall end by remembering. A lot is being said about doom and gloom. I thought that it was time to think about why I stand on this side of your Lordships' House. Many years ago, a cartoon in, I think, the Independent, was of the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher—now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—standing on a derelict landscape. Underneath, it said, "If you seek a monument, look around". In the time of the Conservative Government we had long waiting lists and waiting times for operations. People who were in pain were going into MPs' surgeries and asking why they had to wait two to three years for their operation. I remember something called youth unemployment, and it was raging. The streets of London, where I live, were dirty. People were begging at every tube station. I remember high inflation and interest rates, and sitting with my baby on my knee watching the inflation rate go through the roof to 15 per cent. I said then, "Never again".

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, in welcoming this Statement, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether, when it comes to putting to the test the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition that they want to help the poorer and most vulnerable sections of society, she subscribes to the fact that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. As an illustration, does she agree that this applies very precisely to the commitment to legislate on the rights of temporary and agency workers? These workers, along with fixed-term contract workers and part-time workers, who we have also helped with some assistance from Brussels, are now mainstream workers in our labour force in a modern economy. Is it not the case that, in committing ourselves to helping to protect those workers, they will add to good quality employment in this country and not to the raising of unemployment, which has been incorrectly predicted for the minimum wage for part-time workers and fixed-term contract workers in the past?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the work that we will do on temporary agency workers is of great importance, and I endorse much of what he said.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, can we conclude from the enthusiasm and zeal with which the Leader of the House read the Statement, which was rather like the reading of a last will and testament, that this is the Statement of a Government who have completely run out of road and ideas? Why are our economic difficulties and rising inflation attributed by the Government to rising world prices, energy costs and other costs, whereas when we benefited from falling prices from Chinese imports and so on, and the economy was benefiting from deflation, that was due to the brilliance of the Chancellor? Surely we cannot have it both ways.
	Can the noble Baroness also explain how it is in the taxpayers' interest to bail out housebuilders by buying houses from the private sector, in the way that the Government have bailed out the banks, at a time when they are raising the burden of taxation on people on incomes of between £8,000 and £13,000 a year?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we did not bail out the bank; we were bailing out the depositors and making sure that our economy was secure. As to the brilliance of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, yes, he is brilliant. He was a brilliant Chancellor and he is a brilliant Prime Minister. He has at his heart the interests of the British people and is doing everything he can, in very difficult economic circumstances, to keep our economy as stable as possible—thus far with good results. I pay enormous credit to him for doing that.
	There is no end of the road; it stretches far ahead. I read the Statement with great enthusiasm. The trouble is that the noble Lord was chatting so I do not think he heard me.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, while welcoming the fact that the Government have listened to the blandishments of this House and have agreed to extend the age at which parents can ask for flexible working in order to look after their children, can I tempt the Minister to give us a clue as to what the new age limit will be?
	I fear that the new education Bill may be yet another stick with which to beat schools. Can the Minister confirm that the success or failure of a school will be decided upon by the value added that it gives to children and not only absolute exam results? Will the Government consider reviewing the Ofsted system to ensure that it is inspecting those aspects of a school's work which help to develop the whole child, its well-being and welfare, and enable the child to learn to its full potential?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness about the flexible working announcement because it is being made tomorrow. Let me just say that I think she will be well pleased with it.
	The noble Baroness and I have debated schools many times and she knows that I agree completely with her about value added. It is essential for all children in all circumstances but especially for children who sometimes struggle for all kinds of reasons. One is able to see significant progress often outside the general framework of school activity. Ofsted does a lot of work on continuous review. I do not know whether there is a specific review within the proposals or what it evaluates, but I know that it is looking all the time—not least because, as the noble Baroness will recognise, a child's well-being plays an incredibly important part in their ability to learn and therefore influences their life chances.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Opposition have frequently asked: what is the policy of the Brown Government? Now they know; the Statement sets it out.
	I wish to ask particularly about shipping. Do the Government have any plans to consult with NUMAST, other shipping unions and the Chamber of Shipping about these proposals?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I know the detail of the shipping proposals. The purpose behind the documentation, above anything, is to enable us to consult, having put forward the different proposals. I agree that we have laid out before us a great deal of what the Government will be looking to do in the future, giving us the opportunity for debate.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Lord President of the Council agree that one of things that has made the work of the police more difficult over the past 20 years or so is the increasing level of bureaucracy imposed upon them, which seems to have defied every attempt to stop it? I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government were going to relieve the police of that bureaucracy. How do they propose to do it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is always important to look at bureaucracy in a public service. My experience is that bureaucracy is quite often not imposed centrally but imposed because of an interpretation of how local bodies define the work that they do. That was certainly true in education in my experience. A lot of work has been done with the police to look at the day-to-day experiences of police officers on the beat, what they have to do, and the bureaucracy that applies to them in different parts of the country. As a consequence of that, we will be able to work through what we can do centrally to relieve the burden, while making sure that burdens are not imposed for other reasons further down the chain. That will be the focus of the work. The noble Lord is right that we should make sure that the core job of our police service is done effectively.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House state that the Government would bring forward proposals for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness. Is she aware that the majority of members of police authorities are directly elected representatives at the moment? I am concerned that they will somehow be subsumed in further ideas that the Government might have. I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness. It is not our intention to try to second-guess or subsume, but it is important to look at how best we can make sure that the priorities of local people are carried forward. I know that discussions will go on between now and any proposal becoming legislation. We will ensure that we take on board the comments of the noble Baroness and look at ways in which we can deal with the issues and problems that local people recognise. We must make sure that the police are responsive to what people in their area want. Being visible is one of the most obvious ways in which people would like to see the police operate more effectively.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would like to make a complaint about this Statement being taken on a day when we are supposed to be discussing an important Bill, the European Union (Amendment) Bill. I hope that we will not be made late by more than one hour tonight.
	Why on earth do we need two Queen's Speeches in a year? We have made do with one speech for a few centuries now. Why under a Labour Government do we have to have two of them? One will do. We will discuss it for five days when it comes forward in November and that is quite sufficient. The consultation exercise is a farce, so that is no excuse for having two speeches instead of one.
	Is it not all pie in the sky? There are references in the Statement to the health service. More than 10 years ago, the Labour Party promised in its manifesto to get rid of mixed-sex wards. Twenty per cent of all admissions are still to mixed-sex wards. If we cannot get rid of that system, what chance is there that we will get anything else?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord complains because a Bill that is very important to him is not yet being discussed. I appreciate that, but we have important legislation going through your Lordships' House on most days, and it is important to discuss these issues. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot argue that the Government do not say enough about their proposals. To my knowledge, it has been said of all Governments for at least 30 years that one finds out only when it is too late what they have in mind. We propose to bring forward the proposals so that people can discuss the issues. It is not an attempt to detract from the very important occasion of the Queen's Speech; it is about setting out the proposals early to consult.
	The noble Lord said that consultation is a farce. On what evidence does he base that? Has he read the publication? Has he talked to the people who have been involved? I suspect not. Therefore, I do not accept his premise.
	Noble Lords have heard my noble friend Lord Darzi speak on single-sex accommodation or wards. He is far better at explaining that subject than me, not least because of his clinical experience. However, we have to make a clear distinction between single-sex wards and single-sex accommodation. Single-sex accommodation can be on a ward that is of a different sex because it is deliberately designed in that way. We are moving towards making sure that people have the privacy that they want within the NHS system, which has always to respond to a patient population that can change from day to day.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the Statement commits the Government to a White Paper on Lords reform in the Session beginning in November. Some 45 minutes before that commitment was announced in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, repeated a commitment to a White Paper on Lords reform at the end of the Session finishing in July. He shakes his head, but I remember it very clearly. The noble Baroness also shakes her head. I heard the noble Lord say that we would have a White Paper by the end of July and in the Statement we also have:
	"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice will also publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords and details of our proposals to reform the system of party finance and expenditure".
	It seems rather odd that we should be double-banking White Papers. A White Paper is a statement of government policy. A Green Paper is a statement of policy to be discussed. It would be more sensible for the paper that we are to have before the Summer Recess to be a Green Paper; then there would be some meat to put into the White Paper in the coming Session.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: There is no contradiction in what has been said. It was important within to ensure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—and, indeed, I—mentioned Lords reform in the Statement. Noble Lords should remember that the programme in this Statement was put together long before we knew that there would be a Question on Lords reform on the same day; there was no such Question in the other place, so we put that commitment in to make the position clear. My noble friend is right that it will be done before the Summer Recess. Quite a lot of meat is already there for people to—I may get this wrong—chew and digest when the White Paper is published, but it will be a statement of policy so the appropriate colour is white rather than green.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Statement says that the Government propose to legislate a duty on the unemployed to have their skills needs assessed and to acquire new skills. As the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council knows quite well, at present there is a rule that if you are unemployed you lose your benefits if you study for more than 16 hours. Are they proposing to do away with that rule?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have the detail of the proposal, but the noble Baroness makes an important point. In order to assess people's needs and provide them with opportunities we have to look very carefully and make sure that the other rules in place are fit for purpose. I presume that we will look at them: I have no idea what the outcome will be.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, most of the comments about the Government's proposals from across the Chamber have been negative. I cannot follow the drift of all that, quite frankly. If noble Lords look at the summary at the end, they will see that Government said—my noble friend the Lord President of the Council said this quite adequately and it will reinforce what I have to say—that there would be,
	"an education Bill to ensure that every school is a good school".
	Who is opposed to that? Who in this Chamber could be opposed to improving patients' rights in the NHS? I could go on. What is right is that the Government are listening and will implement legislation that will benefit the nation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, not surprisingly, I agree with my noble friend completely. I make no apology for wanting to be part of a Government who have the best health and education policies and the best support for business and the economy.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister explain why last week we finished a ragbag of a Bill on criminal justice and immigration and are promised in this Statement a policing and crime reduction Bill? Cannot the Government leave the criminal justice system alone for a while in order to allow the reforms that they constantly introduce to be absorbed and put into practice? So many parts of previous Bills have not been brought into practice at all. In addition, we had the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: we now have another immigration Bill. Is that not too much for everybody?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, when the noble Lord looks at the immigration Bill, he will see that quite a lot of what is proposed involves consolidation, which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not in the Chamber, has consistently asked for. I hope that that will find some favour.
	In terms of the issues involving policing and criminal justice, it is important to make sure that we continually review the laws that are in place to ensure that they can deal with what is often a changing situation. Issues that we deal with now—they involve serious and organised crime, terrorism and people-trafficking, which is an important part of the criminal justice Bill that has just been through your Lordships' House—require us to be vigilant in ensuring that our legislation contains the powers that our police and services need to bring people to justice.

European Union (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [Addition to list of treaties]:

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after "excluding" insert—
	"(i) Article 2, paragraph 147, inserted Article 176A TEC (TFEU), relating to energy; and(ii) "

Lord Howell of Guildford: This amendment concerns a new article that can be found by a diligent search in the current treaty—difficult though it is to find these headings. I call it new but it is an almost identical copy, with one small addition to what was in the previous draft of the rejected constitutional treaty. Almost all the text of the treaty is embodied in this Bill. In no area is more nonsense talked about the technicalities of an issue than in energy policy. There is a great deal of enthusiasm, lobbying and favourite causes being promoted and rather more smoke—possibly heat—than light, in this area.
	Behind the arrival of this new clause in this treaty and in the previous constitutional treaty is the aspiration for what is called a common EU energy policy. The treaty provisions that introduce a new energy competence and allow the introduction of legislation in this area by qualified majority voting refer to all sorts of attractive sounding things, such as solidarity, security of supply, energy efficiency, interconnection of networks—a real benefit—and other admirable objectives, such as reduced carbon emissions. It is a classic example of a clause being paved with good intentions. We know, of course, where they often lead. The interesting thing is that the Government fought very hard to keep energy out of the treaty altogether and to prevent it coming into the convention. The Minister at the time, Mr Hain, said:
	"This provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty. For example, the single market environment etc".
	He added:
	"We have detailed concerns on the text".
	We, too, have detailed concerns and would like them answered. My overall concern is that the rhetoric of this article and the realities of energy security and problems are miles—perhaps I should have said kilometres—apart.
	I would not dispute for a moment the fact that some extremely dangerous energy supply and security issues lie just ahead. Some of us would say that they are already here. Crude oil prices are at staggering levels—in real terms, they are above those reached in the early 1980s—and rising to $126 and $130. As we discovered two winters ago, we have unreliable gas supplies but a heavy dependence—about 40 per cent—on gas for our electricity. When I had some responsibility for these things a quarter of a century ago, it was 1 per cent but now 40 per cent of our daily electricity supply is gas-fired. We have concerns about the storage of gas and why we have fewer days for storage than our continental neighbours. We have concerns about the wild oscillation in gas prices. We have endless dithering over the need to resume our nuclear power programme. We still have not made the right decisions, but when we do, it will take us nine or 10 years to get new plants up and running. We have the prospect of power shortages between 2010 and 2016, as an increasing number of experts are pointing out. We have the over-zealotry of some of the perfectly proper enthusiasts for a greener, more sustainable planet, which seems to lead to the excessive piling on of fuel and energy taxes, charges and subsidies, regardless of the fuel poverty that they create. Inevitably, that makes environmental policies unpopular and threatens economic growth.
	We also have the biofuels errors, which the government scientist described as insane policies, and the consequent rise in food prices and the starving of the poor which are caused by those energy-related programmes. I cannot understand why some EU leaders or our own Foreign Secretary seem to be in denial about the relationship between the biofuels commitment element in European energy policy and the enormous increase in food prices in the past two or three years, which has led to unrest and riots in 33 countries. The Washington Institute of Food Research, which is very authoritative and respected, calculated that crop switching accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of the food price rise worldwide.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I followed the biofuels point from a distance, but I understood that it was American subsidies for biofuels that were really distorting the market and that the European production had played only an extremely small part in it. Is the noble Lord saying that the distortion of the global food market is Europe's fault, rather than the immense subsidies which the Americans have had on biofuels?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am talking about worldwide, so I am talking about the American switch, and certainly the European emphasis on switching to biofuels. It is the EU, America and other places as well. The institute I quoted was looking at the worldwide situation, not America alone.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Is there not an EU requirement that up to 5 per cent of the content of the petrol that people put in their cars has to be generated from biofuels? Is not the European Community therefore adding to the situation?

Lord Howell of Guildford: There is, of course, the renewable fuels obligation, which we ourselves have in place. Beyond that there is a declared objective of 20 per cent renewables in our energy by 2020 in which it is implicit that there has to be a massive switch from mineral oil to plant-based oil. That is why European farmers, as well as American farmers, have been moving towards these oil-based crops. That is happening, and unless the policy is changed it will continue and cause more misery and starvation. That is absolutely so.
	I have already mentioned the question of renewables—20 per cent by 2020—and whether they are profitable or being subsidised in the right way. We need to watch those matters very carefully. As we all know, the insatiable demand for oil from China and India is driving up prices. Nationalism all around the world is driving out the international oil companies and asserting a degree of nationalism in access to oil. There is the lack of investment in oil and gas resources; and there are all sorts of scams and oddities around, like the carbon offset rackets and possibly the wrongly phased subsidies to wind farms which newspapers such as the Financial Times have very bravely exposed, although nothing much seems to have been done about them. I am simply saying that there is a whole string of energy problems which we urgently need to face. But how will more EU powers, as in this treaty, really help? Is it that they are concerned about security of supply? Frankly, that is bound to be a matter primarily for national Governments, as every Government in Europe knows perfectly well.
	Here on this island we would do much better to rely on our friend Norway, which has plenty of gas and oil for years to come, and on importing liquid natural gas—as we are planning to do to some extent—rather than on the continental grid supplied by Russian gas, which has proved to be quite a tricky system to rely on, particularly in the coldest hours of the coldest days of the coldest years.
	We all want to reduce dependence on oil. The United States has probably done better than others in this regard, although Europe has done pretty well also, as has the UK within Europe. But, again, do we need new laws to do that? We all want to get our policy on the support of renewables right and support the ones that are really going to make a contribution, but is the EU guidance towards biofuels, which has helped cause the global food price rise, the right way forward? I am not sure. If we are concerned with carbon reduction, which is related to energy policy, is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme the right system? Many people say that it has made zero impact in reducing carbon but has plenty of bad side-effects. And so on.
	As for sharing stocks, the International Energy Agency, which I chaired many years ago, has a very elaborate scheme for sharing stocks in an emergency. It is quite ready to implement it. That is not always popular, but we have to do it. As for revival of nuclear power, that really is a global issue. It has very little to do with Europe alone. Once we get our programmes going, we will probably rely on French industry, maybe South African expertise and maybe USA expertise. Even the Chinese might help us because we have been so slow in getting back into nuclear power. But, again, what have these things to do with new powers in Europe?
	The truth is that EU policies of the kind proposed, namely more centralisation and more involvement, are not only unnecessary but in many instances wrong for our country, leading to bad strategic stances and decisions. The Government were right first time to resist them. They should have resisted them much harder. Mr Hain was right in his initial stance and we should have stuck to common sense rather than to the common energy dreams and dangers. That is why I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Rowlands: I am prompted to intervene by a column I read a while ago in Time magazine by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. It was entitled "Darkness Looms". He reminded readers that he had been energy Secretary 25 years before when there was a Department of Energy. I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Front Bench also was an energy Minister in one capacity or another a considerable time ago. It prompted me to remember that I was the shadow spokesman 25 years ago, and a very enjoyable experience it was, too, to mark the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who was great fun to debate with among other things. The experience prompted him, and it prompts me, to reflect on the changes that have taken place in the last 25 years.
	Our energy debates 25 years ago were primarily domestic. They centred around whether we should privatise and how we should allocate the enormous energy resources we had. We had an abundance of coal, we had oil, we had gas and we had nuclear power—a diverse range. In 25 years that scene has been transformed. I recall debating the importance of gas as the "premium fuel" and not burning it in power stations. The speed with which we have depleted our gas reserves has led to a problem of energy security. It is therefore not surprising that energy security has now come to the fore. I am not surprised that for the first time in a European treaty there is an energy chapter, though like the noble Lord I shall have some questions about it. We will also have an Energy Bill in the next week or two. Energy security has come to the centre stage.
	I should like to know the answers to the following questions, which in some ways the noble Lord, Lord Howell, also posed. What exactly will this energy chapter do? What is it all about? What is in it that was not in previous treaties or arrangements? For example, does it increase areas of qualified majority voting on energy? It appears that it does, but to what extent?
	I turn to what, for me, is the most authoritative assessment that we have—the European Union Select Committee's report, which I found extremely useful. However, I found the paragraphs relating to energy rather less than full and the committee's conclusion at paragraph 9.33 rather enigmatic:
	"The new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty may raise the profile of the issue of energy but they do not constitute a major innovation. However the extension of QMV may be seen as significant".
	When my noble friend replies to this debate, I hope that he will be able to spell out rather more clearly how far qualified majority voting will be extended in the field of energy. What illustrative examples can he give us to show the impact of this new energy chapter in terms of an extension of QMV? Unfortunately, in this case, and in this case only, the EU Committee did not provide us with that invaluable information.
	Secondly, I want to find out what the Commission's involvement will be in issues of energy security. If one reads the debates in the other place, one can see that there were a lot of hares running with regard to how the Commission would be able to take over our supplies and reallocate them in an emergency or crisis. I should be grateful if my noble friend could clarify whether this chapter in any way adds to or develops the Commission's or Council's powers and whether it allows them, through the ordinary procedure, to extend and expand their role in the issue of emergency energy supplies.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we have a very fine track record of dealing with crises in international energy, and it does not seem to me that there is any need for the Commission or anyone else to cut across the basic and fundamental responsibility and obligation placed on all of us under the terms of the energy agency. Again, I should be grateful if my noble friend could confirm the character and nature of the Commission's responsibilities, if it has any in this regard, and say whether this treaty is in some cases promoting these areas. There was a debate in the other place about whether the Commission would have the power to propose, under ordinary procedure, a statutory increase in oil reserve stocks. Apparently, that was a hard-won concession. However, my recollection is that qualified majority voting in that area may have been introduced in the treaty of Nice. Again, I should be very grateful if my noble friend could clarify that.
	Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I should like to know what the new role of the Commission and Council will be, through ordinary procedure, in attaining security of energy supplies. I thought that he was disingenuous in the case that he made—but it is a case that I shall make too. National Governments are ultimately responsible for the security of their energy supplies. However, despite our connections with Norway, if something relating to the security of energy supplies happened in Europe, no one could believe that that would not reverberate throughout our country as well. There is no longer a drawbridge in such issues, and therefore we have a profound interest in revising the complex relationships that exist between European countries and those in the East. After all the unbundling that might occur and all the competition that there might be in the European energy market, there is one inescapable fact—at least in relation to gas, for a very long period Europe will be dependent for its supplies on the East.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, occasionally reads Select Committee reports. He chaired the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs with distinction while I also had the privilege of serving on it. It recently produced a report entitled Global Security: Russia which spells out the incredibly complex, difficult and dangerous diplomatic moves that are interlocked with gas pipeline diplomacy. This diplomacy could have a considerable effect on Russian-Turkish and Russian-Turkish-EU relationships, let alone relationships between Russia and its neighbouring states. I therefore also wonder what further role the European Commission will play in this capacity.
	We had the G8 meeting in St Petersburg and the establishment of an energy charter treaty. We have a UK-Russian forum. We also have an EU-Russian energy forum. It seems that lots of processes are in place. The problem is not the processes, it is people's definition of what their national interests are. In the case of the Russians, they apparently do not want to ratify that treaty or agree to a transit protocol of the kind that we and our European partners would like. All of these are profoundly serious matters. I am not sure what additional power and role the Commission will have in energy security, despite its reference in the chapter.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I will end on this note. I agree that there should be a European dimension to our energy policy—unlike some of the amendments, which would make it impossible to have any kind of a European Union energy policy. Everybody knows, in every nation state, that the citizens of the nation state hold their national Governments responsible for heat and light. I can recall at least two Governments of the past 30 years, in my parliamentary lifetime, where that lesson was learnt. In February 1974, the Government of the day learnt a very painful lesson—that if they could not keep the lights on then there would be considerable political as well as social and economic consequences. Ten years later, in 1984, we found a Government who had learnt that lesson and were prepared to avoid such a situation. In the last resort, however much we should endeavour to develop the desirable idea of a common European energy policy, it will always remain the national Government's responsibility to ensure that our nation is warm and lit.

Lord Blackwell: I should like to add to the already formidable list of issues raised by my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 119, which is in my name, and which I hope may provide some resolution to these issues.
	For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has just enunciated, few things are more important to a nation than the security of its energy supply. The problem that many of us have with this treaty is that it is completely unclear about what role exactly the European Union will play—where the limits of its role lie and what role that leaves for the nation state to pursue its obligations on security to its citizens. Article 2C of the Lisbon treaty moves energy into this new category of shared competences, where it is then defined as subject to legislation by qualified majority voting. Article 176A then spells out in detail that the European Union shall establish whatever measures are necessary to do a number of things, including ensuring the functioning of the energy market and ensuring security of energy supply. It goes on to say that,
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources".
	But what does it mean to say that the European Union shall take whatever measures are necessary to ensure security of energy supply? What role does that give the European Union in taking control of our energy resources? What control does it give the European Union in directing the way in which our energy priorities are set?
	This uncertainty is added to by Article 84 in the Lisbon treaty, which says:
	"Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy".
	I know that much of that statement was in the previous treaty, but energy has notably been added to it. What measures may the Commission and the Council, without prejudice to any other procedures in the treaties, decide to impose in a spirit of solidarity to deal with issues of energy shortage? Exactly what powers are we handing over to the European Union? Will the Commission and Council be able to control our reserves if they so wish? Will they be able to direct the way in which energy resources move within the Community?
	These provisions in the treaty are completely unclear. In a measure that is so important, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has spelt out, we need to be very clear about the exact delineation. My amendment is clear. It would not affect the words of the treaty. It would simply add to the Bill the following clarification:
	"Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as limiting the sole right of the United Kingdom government to take decisions regarding the control and management of the United Kingdom's energy supply".

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am sure that the noble Lord has done a lot of research into his amendment, but will he answer one small, factual question? Is his amendment compatible with our obligations under the International Energy Agency, which is of course nothing to do with the European Union? I believe that it is not.

Lord Blackwell: I am talking about what this Bill or the treaty of Lisbon does; I am not talking about other obligations that we may have.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My question is whether the amendment is compatible with our international obligations under the International Energy Agency.

Lord Blackwell: Nothing in my amendment changes any obligations that we may or may not have. It simply refers to changes introduced by the Bill and the treaty of Lisbon. I assume that, if we are already compatible, we will continue to be so. This debate is solely concerned with the treaty of Lisbon.
	I hope that the Government can assure us that nothing in the Bill or the treaty of Lisbon will change the right of the United Kingdom to take these decisions. I am sure that they will be happy to allay all the concerns that have been expressed by agreeing to the amendment so that it is included in the Bill. If they cannot agree to it, they are obliged to spell out exactly what in the Bill and the treaty of Lisbon prevents them from giving such an assurance to the Committee and to the British public.

Lord Lea of Crondall: This short debate has illustrated the huge gap between the ideas behind some of the criticisms of the Lisbon treaty and the reality of the rapidly changing world in which we live. The fact that national energy policy is a mirage is illustrated every day in the Financial Times. Is $200 a barrel a figure that we as a country have decided on? Of course not.
	The European Union Committee report on Russia and the European Union—it is an excellent report, if I may so—states that Russia can play the major countries of Europe one off against the other because they have not got their act together on energy policy. Those noble Lords who make these criticisms seem to want it both ways. They do not want Europe to do anything, yet they criticise the weakness of the European Union in enabling Russia, OPEC or anyone else to play countries off against one another.
	Take the question of emissions trading. In effect, we are moving inexorably towards a carbon-taxing Europe. I welcome that, but other people want to walk backwards towards Christmas, as far as I can see. They want to deny that it is happening and still keep on walking. They know very well that we are moving towards an agreed $50 or $80 per tonne of carbon dioxide. They know that we will have to have a carbon tax in this country. We know that that carbon tax will have to be the same carbon tax per tonne as in every other European country, otherwise how are we going to avoid the contradictions which other noble Lords have drawn attention to?
	If I had to make a criticism of the Lisbon treaty on this question, it is that it does not go far enough. We might all agree that it is not explicit enough, but how can you be explicit about what is going to happen in the accelerating pace of change in the modern world? There has been criticism that the Emissions Trading Scheme and the degree to which we have to fiscalise in this country, or pay out through private enterprise into purchase of units in Africa and elsewhere, is not a matter for the European Union. Yet about a month ago, the European Union announced that it is making provision that by 2020 Europe will be handing over to developing countries €50 billion per year. Of that amount, we would pay €7 billion or €8 billion which we would have to fiscalise within Britain as well as put into our overseas trading account in some way. That will have to be agreed in Europe, if for no reason other than the fact that we have arguments about competitive advantage within Europe unless we do it on a common European basis.
	People cannot get up and make speeches saying that Europe is a waste of time in so far as emissions trading is concerned and not draw the conclusion that Europe must get it right rather than that Europe should not do it in the first place.
	There is certainly a question of the man and woman in the street in Burton upon Trent paying what they might be encouraged to believe by the Conservative Party are stealth taxes putting up petrol and home oil prices. Choking off demand has to be done somehow. It can be done through either prices or taxation in some other way. Logically, from a fiscal point of view, there is no reason why we cannot have fiscal neutrality as well as a degree of hypothecation, putting up the tax for some people and putting it down for others. But all this will have to be done on a European basis.
	One could go on, in terms of the rules about power stations et cetera. But it is absolutely Alice in Wonderland to hear people in this debate saying that the problem with the Lisbon treaty is that it does too much. It does not do enough. That is the question that has to be raised against some of the statements made by noble Lords.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I find it quite extraordinary listening to the noble Lord talk about Alice in Wonderland. The two amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Blackwell, which I support, are eminently sensible. They do not preclude co-operation within the European Community on energy matters; they ensure that we are able to determine issues independently where our national interest is at stake.
	My noble friend's Amendment No. 70 simply removes the new energy article which gives the EU more powers, subject to QMV. My noble friend Lord Blackwell's amendment simply highlights the significance of the move to QMV on aspects of energy policy. I do not, for the life of me, understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lea, should be concerned about that. I much prefer the view put by his noble friend Lord Rowlands, who warned us of the importance of security of supply and of Governments being able to protect their national interest. If energy is unable to be supplied, that has a fundamental and damaging effect on our quality of life and economy. Many wars and conflicts have been fought on those very issues.
	If the noble Lord wants to bring Alice in Wonderland into the debate, I give him one example. Not a fortnight ago I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in Question Time about the effects of the European Community's requirement to have a proportion of biofuels included in petrol, which has resulted in the increase in the prices of food throughout the world, to which my noble friend referred. It has caused great damage—indeed, it has killed people because of starvation and their inability to afford those food prices. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that the relationship between biofuels and those problems was at yet unproven and that the Government were looking at this matter and had it under review.
	I turned on the radio this morning, not a matter of weeks later, to hear the Chancellor telling us that he is this very day going to Brussels to argue that we should be released from the requirement to have a certain percentage of biofuels included in our petrol. The fact is that there is nothing that we can do about it, unless we get agreement—and it is very damaging to the world as a whole. That is one example of a European policy that has proved foolish, although no doubt it was well intentioned; its consequences have been severe, and we have great difficulty in reversing it.
	I shall give the noble Lord another example, for which perhaps the Government of whom I was a member bear some responsibility. Those people who are in favour of green taxes should look at what happened to the previous Conservative Government when they introduced VAT on fuel. It was extremely unpopular. If you read the columns of the national press, you can see lots of people pointing out that the heating allowances that they get from the state are less than the VAT that they have to pay on the fuel. A sensible policy might be to consider lifting that, but we do not have freedom to remove VAT once it has been imposed.
	The noble Lord is a little cavalier in suggesting that we should risk giving up our ability to determine our policies according to our national interests. He mentioned Russia, which we know is quite capable of using energy as a political tool. We have seen that already. We also know that there is a diversity of interests within the European Community and according to the position of the various member states and their dependence on a particular energy.

Lord Dykes: This intervention is too long.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: It is not an intervention. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, had sat down.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I paused before I sat down, because I thought that the noble Lord was getting up. I shall just make one point—but we are all perhaps taking time which other people might think that we should not be taking.
	Several speeches have contained remarks that I believe to be totally fallacious, so I want to make one point for the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was a very notable member of the Government who in effect more or less closed down the coal industry. Many of us at that time said that the dash for gas would result in problems of security of supply. Now he says that we are ignoring security of supply. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rowlands and I are on exactly the same side of that argument.
	Finally, on the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, being against green taxes, his party is in favour of the targets for a 70 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2050 in the Climate Change Bill. The Conservatives voted for it. How are we going to get to that without choking off some demand in this country? They are being totally dishonest about this. I very rarely make political points—but mark my words that in due course, whether they become the Government or not, they will have to take responsibility for dealing with this green taxation question.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I apologise to the Committee; I thought that the noble Lord had sat down, and I was making my own speech. Because it is a debate, I was following on from his points and I apologise if that caused confusion.
	Of course we want to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels; I am happy to come on to that issue. The answer there is to follow the French lead and to embark, as speedily as possible, on building nuclear power stations in this country, while using increasingly available technology to develop electric motor cars and other devices that will enable us to be less dependent on fossil fuels. The noble Lord and I do not differ on the need for co-operation within the European Community; what is of concern is that we should surrender our ability to decide those things for ourselves.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lea, made a political point about the closure of the coal-mines. The other day, I was struck by a proposal to reopen the deep mines in Scotland, to which one leading trade union member said, in public, "Why on earth would we want to go back to sending men down to do those dirty, dangerous jobs in the deep coal-mines?". There is not entire unanimity about the benefits of operating mines that were then inefficient and rather dangerous; the noble Lord might agree about that.
	Could the Minister, then, deal specifically with this point? If there is no threat of the kind suggested by my noble friend Lord Blackwell, what is the objection to accepting his amendment?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I recall reading that in 1950, when the first west European institution—the old European Coal and Steel Community—was being negotiated, many in the then Labour Government thought that Britain ought to join it. They recognised that we did not have a purely national energy market, as we imported oil and had been forced to export coal to Germany between 1946 and 1948, and that there were good arguments for co-operation. However, the Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, said, "I don't care what you think. The Durham miners won't have it".

Lord Radice: That was Morrison.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Well, if it was Morrison, never mind; it was the same nationalist argument. When we joined the European Economic Community, we also joined not only the ECSC but EURATOM. We have been in international energy co-operation regionally and, since 1973, globally with the International Energy Agency. We have to be careful that our arguments on this Bill do not extend toward resistance to international regulation as such. Some of the arguments have got close to that.
	This is a consolidation amendment, which talks about promoting the interconnection of energy networks. The United Kingdom electricity network has, for many years, been interconnected with that of France; we now need a number of gas connectors across the North Sea to Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. The clause says it is to promote energy efficiency and savings; although it also comes under that context, it does not refer to the promotion of competition policy and an open market in EU energy. That is strongly in Britain's interest, because the French and German markets are less open than the British. I think that I get my electricity from a French company; others get theirs, or their gas, from German ones.
	This is, then, a consolidation and not a new invasion of British sovereignty. We are in a regional market for electricity and gas. We also operate within a global oil market. It makes sense to co-operate with our European neighbours and the European Union is the useful framework in which to do that.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: No one is arguing that we should not co-operate. The point is that in all these agreements we are able to operate as a sovereign state and decide to enter or leave them. The question here is whether we are ceding power and will not be able to act in that way. That is the point and is why, if there is a move that would enable us not to do that, it is undesirable. The noble Lord is setting up an Aunt Sally and knocking it down, but he is not addressing the concerns that have been expressed.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The underlying difference between us is probably how far one starts from a gut mistrust of co-operation under rules. International regulation has to imply very clear rules. The argument about the IEA versus the European Union is also about how far one lets the Americans set the rules or how far one co-operates with others to design the rules within the European market. That is an argument we had in 1973-74, as I am sure the noble Lord will remember, over the setting up of the IEA, and it is an argument that continues. I, like many of us, start from the assumption that it makes sense to co-operate most closely with our neighbours with whom we share a regional energy market. International regulation is, of course, a limitation of absolute national sovereignty. A global world economy is an invasion of national sovereignty. Foreign companies owning British energy suppliers is a limitation of national sovereignty. I recognise that, and we have to manage it.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I, too, some time in the past had something to do with energy policy, and at some moments this afternoon I could have shut my eyes and heard the mellifluous tones of a Secretary of State for Energy who has not yet been quoted, Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, because most of the speeches from the Opposition Benches would have found their place in his mouth. He was an ultra-nationalist in energy policy, and he would have subscribed to all those views.
	This debate has strayed a longish way from what we are discussing, which is, effectively, making energy policy a part of the treaty in its own right and enabling decisions to be taken by qualified majority. The arguments for that are very similar to the arguments that noble Lords opposite found extremely compelling in the context of the single market and the Single European Act; that is, it was in Britain's interest to be able to take a number of these decisions, which would make for a more single market in energy, and that having that done by qualified majority would therefore be in this country's interest. That is a view that I share. To do that is not to surrender national sovereignty.
	Interestingly enough, all the things that the European Union does now on energy policy, which have been complained about at some length by noble Lords opposite, have been done under the existing powers. They are nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. Reversing, let us say, the biofuels commitment would be more difficult if there was not a provision that enabled it to be done by qualified majority and it had to be done by unanimity. I do not particularly want to reverse it anyway immediately because I think the debate has got a little overheated at the moment, as illustrated by claims that virtually single-handedly the European Union has forced up food prices worldwide when in fact the biggest push factor has been the enormous increase in consumption of certain foods by the more prosperous populations of China, India and south-east Asia. But let us leave that on one side.
	The question is whether it makes sense to have it in the Lisbon treaty that decisions on energy matters are to be taken by qualified majority. I believe it does. There are plenty of safeguards in the treaty. The question of Britain's ownership of its resources and right to take decisions over their depletion is carefully excluded from any rights for the European Union. On the International Energy Agency and the sharing of stocks, the reason I asked the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the question I did was because he stated categorically in his amendment that we have absolute control over these matters. We do not. We signed a treaty that set up the International Energy Agency and committed us to pooling our resources in certain circumstances, so the amendment is incompatible with our international obligations, not our European ones.

Lord Blackwell: The noble Lord has raised this again. Does he accept that there is a difference between an agreement that we enter into as a sovereign nation, which we can exit at our choice but where the UK Government still controls national interest, and a policy where we may not be able to decide because it is imposed on us by qualified majority voting, which the noble Lord recommends? One may believe that that is a good thing, but it is fundamentally different in kind.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: It is not different in kind if we have accepted it as an international obligation. It is different in kind in the period before we accept it. In the period before we accept it as an international obligation, it is up to us. We can veto it, or not join the organisation, as the French did not join the International Energy Agency at the outset, although they have now joined it. We can do that, but once we have joined, and jointly taken a decision to share our oil stocks, I do not notice any difference whatever, except that the method of making decisions about those stocks is different. The obligation is the same. It is a binding international obligation on the British Government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not going to intervene but I have to put one brief and simple question to the Minister. It is inspired by the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Hannay, with which I fancy the Minister will agree. What makes Her Majesty's Government confident that the European Union will be any better at running a common energy policy than it is at running our agriculture, fishing, financial services and, indeed, any area where it extends its unwanted tentacles? We may have been foolish virgins with our oil and gas reserves, but I underline the question of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, if he does not mind my describing him so. Why do we not simply establish our national independence by building enough nuclear power stations as soon as possible, and so avoid having to be dependent on energy from Russia and elsewhere, coming to us courtesy of the French, and overseen by, of all things, Brussels? You could not make it up. I look forward to the Minister's answer.

Lord Bach: Amendment No. 70 refers to the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that would create a specific legal base for energy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for moving his amendment and pay tribute to his experience and expertise in this particular field, having been a previous Secretary of State.
	The appearance of a separate energy article reflects the growing importance of energy as a political and economic issue in the European Union, and the need for more effective action at Union level to achieve our energy and climate security objectives. The Stern report states that 65 per cent of global emissions come from energy. Meanwhile, the world's demand for energy rises inexorably. The dilemma facing us is how to meet our energy needs and, at the same time, stabilise our climate. This is very much a 21st century security and prosperity challenge.
	The new article will help to ensure that policies on energy markets, energy security and energy efficiency are coherent and mutually reinforcing. This is vital if we in the UK are to achieve our own energy and climate change priorities, and to successfully drive the transition to a high-growth, low-carbon economy in Europe. The creation of a separate energy article has the advantage of providing a transparent means of enacting energy policy at the EU level. It is not new EU action on energy, but in the past we had to rely, in particular, on other, more general articles in existing treaties. Examples include Article 175 for the environment or Article 195 for internal market measures. A separate energy article provides better governance and better regulation. It brings clarity to what the EU intends to do and how it will achieve it.
	EU action on energy is not a new invention. The Maastricht treaty listed energy as an activity of the Community, although the Community had acted on energy before. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us, European-level action on energy goes back to the inception of the coal and steel community and EURATOM more than 50 years ago.
	Today, the EU has already implemented a wide range of measures on energy policy under existing legal bases of the EC treaty. Although the Lisbon treaty provides a dedicated legal base for EU action on specific areas of energy policy for the first time, the Committee should not be under any illusions that the Union has been taking action for some years to open energy markets. We support that liberalising action.
	The Lisbon treaty confirms that qualified majority voting will continue to apply to the majority of future decisions made on energy policy at the EU level. My noble friend Lord Rowlands, who I am very glad is taking part in this debate, asked some questions about QMV. I emphasise that, in the past, energy measures were taken under qualified majority voting. As I understand it, there will be nothing specific under QMV that was not there before, but, of course, it was not under the energy legal base. It was under the other provisions that I have tried to describe.

Lord Rowlands: Is my noble friend describing this chapter or article as a purely consolidation measure and not one that will extend QMV to new areas of energy policy?

Lord Bach: I am cautious in how I reply, but my understanding is that that is the position. There are no proposals to be taken under the new energy article, but the Lisbon treaty provides what I continue to describe as a legal base for future action on energy security and promoting renewable energy, as well as further action on what the Committee will want to see—energy market liberalisation.
	My noble friend asked also about the Commission's role. The treaty makes it clear that its member states will maintain the right,
	"to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources".
	I shall come back to that important point, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Forsyth. The Commission will be able to propose legislation, as it has in the past. This time it will be under the energy legal basis.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Perhaps I am confused and muddled; the noble Lord is, as always, making a very reasonable case for the treaty's provisions on energy. But if they are so reasonable, why did the Government work so hard to prevent them being included? Was it not one of their objectives not to have these provisions in the treaty? He makes it sound terribly unthreatening. What were the Government worried about when they were fighting so hard, or am I missing something here?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord misses very little. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, could not resist raising that point in moving the amendment, for which I do not blame him. Perhaps I may come to that point later. I hope that I have explained the point raised by my noble friend Lord Rowlands on QMV and the significance of having a separate energy article. To repeat myself, it reflects the growing importance of energy as a major issue in the EU and the connected policy areas of climate change.
	As I say, the treaty confirms that QMV will continue to apply to the majority of future decisions—not fiscal decisions; I make that clear—made on energy policy. This is in our interests as a country. We are leading the push for greater liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets across the continent which, if implemented fully, could save EU consumers tens of billions of euros a year. Frankly, without QMV we would have made very little progress in liberalising energy markets and we would not have any chance of securing the package of further liberalisation currently being negotiated. Indeed, without qualified majority voting, it is arguable that the Commission would not have proposed the measures in the first place. But, I repeat, the treaty retains unanimity for fiscal measures, as argued for by us.
	Amendment No. 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and the linked Amendment No. 120 relate to the control of our energy supplies. The Lisbon treaty does not allow the EU to take control of our oil stocks or reserves. It clearly states:
	"Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the condition for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
	Declaration 35 to the Lisbon treaty goes on to say that,
	"Article 176A does not affect the right of the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure their energy supply".
	So, in answer to noble Lords who posed this crucial question, we are not passing over the power to protect the security of our energy supply—no nation would.
	Paragraph 9.34 of the EU Select Committee report states:
	"The insertion of Article 194(2) is important as it helps to define the boundaries between EU and Member States' competence by making clear that Member States retain sovereignty over national energy resources and have the right to determine their energy mix and the structure of their energy supply".
	I was asked why we had initially opposed putting an energy article into the treaty. We could not accept in the draft treaty in the convention of 2003—which prepared the now-defunct constitutional treaty—an energy article which we did not think at the time was in our interests. We were concerned that a new article should not restrict what was already possible using other articles—which, as I say, is the way we have done it in the past—but we also wanted to protect our rights over natural oil and gas reserves and make sure that we could act to ensure security of supply in emergencies. We believe that we have secured this in the final text and I have quoted from that part of the treaty. In particular treaty language, it makes it clear that, first, member states determine their own energy mix; secondly, that member states retain control over their own energy resources; and thirdly—and very significantly—all tax issues are decided by unanimity. These safeguards did not exist in the draft treaty that was part of the 2003 convention. That is why we could not accept it.

Lord Blackwell: I thank the Minister for his helpful reassurances but can he explain exactly the language in Article 87 of the Lisbon treaty which states that in areas of supply difficulty the commission may take whatever measures are necessary without prejudice to other procedures provided for in the treaties? Does that not provide an ability for the European Union to override all those reassurances if it determines that there is a situation of supply difficulties?

Lord Bach: We do not think that it does. I called it Article 100; I think that we are talking about the same animal—numbers are difficult in this, as the noble Lord agrees. This article inserts a reference to "a spirit of solidarity". A similar reference is included in the new energy article. Noble Lords should not be too concerned about that. It is unlikely to result in significant change, given that Article 2 of the treaty establishing the European Community already includes the task of promoting solidarity between member states. It is certainly a form of words and it may be more than that, but it should not be of great concern.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Why not?

Lord Bach: Because the phrase "a spirit of solidarity" is a repetition of a phrase that appears in Article 2 of the treaty and does not overcome the article and the declaration that I have already quoted. That is certainly the Government's view.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Would the Minister be amused to hear that he reminds me of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who, standing where the Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box during our debates on Maastricht, said exactly the same about doubts that we raised on the future of justice and home affairs? If any noble Lord has not yet read the speeches of my noble friends, Lord Kingsland and Lord Blackwell, in our previous day in Committee, on exactly where we have got in spite of all that meaningless language in Maastricht, I suggest that they do so.

Lord Bach: The noble Lord has paid me—I do not know whether he meant to—one of the greatest compliments that I have ever been paid, which is to be compared with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I think that I shall leave my answer at that and sit down before the noble Lord changes his mind. I have attempted to answer what noble Lords have argued in their amendments, which I hope noble Lords will not seek to press.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for the good-natured and thorough way in which he sought to answer some of the worries raised in this debate. I am not in the least bit reassured. When we debate energy in this Chamber, we do it rather well. A great reservoir of expertise is here and a good deal of apprehension about what is coming on the energy policy front, because it is clear that many difficulties are looming to which we have perhaps not given enough attention, so keen have we been to fix our eyes on the longer horizons of saving the planet and so on. There will not be any planet to save if we get all our energy problems wrong.
	Throughout this debate there has flowed a quality of—what can I call it?—mandarinesque naivety about what is really happening in energy policy throughout the whole of the European membership. We are playing games. We talk about liberalising—and of course that is right. We dream about a better European energy market. We are, as is often said, playing cricket while others are pushing their own national monopolies, securing their own energy supplies and getting on with the job of looking after the number one requirement of a national Government, which is to ensure that energy flows continue.
	I heard the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hannay, assert the virtues of the regional energy market. There is no regional energy market. It is pure imagination to assume that our neighbours, whatever they may say in their rhetoric, are pursuing the free energy market policies required to create such an entity. We know the realities. While the continental champions E.ON, EDF, Iberdola and others are supplying us and taking over our concerns, nobody asks how many French consumers or German consumers are being supplied by British concerns. The answer is none at all. The whole thing is lopsided. Our neighbours in Europe, while talking about common energy policies and drafting them to put into this treaty, are getting on with their own energy policies in quite different ways and doing separate deals with the Russians, as in the case of the Germans, and so on. That is the reality.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: If I have followed the logic of the noble Lord's argument, he is saying that we should return to a protected national energy market.

Lord Howell of Guildford: No, the logic is the exact opposite. We should be realists. We should see that if we want to develop an effective energy scene for ourselves, we should do so on a global basis and look after our interests. If we talk about energy markets while others pursue completely different targets in completely different directions, we will find—as we found with the gas market—that it is impossible to be the liberal island in a larger area that is not liberal and which is governed by completely different principles. That is what I am saying.
	I was going on to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands. He and I served together and had many adventures in the international scene in the distant past. The question that he pressed was, "What do these provisions do?". That is a true and accurate question indeed. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, the treaty provisions—quite aside from whether they do anything; we are still not clear what they do—are extremely vague.
	As for the International Energy Agency, we signed up to it and gave certain undertakings. I suppose that we could have walked out on it at any time. I have a personal experience to share with your Lordships. In 1979 I went to Paris and chaired a meeting at which I signed up to various production, output and stock-sharing agreements with our neighbours in Europe in a spirit of solidarity. When I got back to London the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, was not at all pleased. In fact she glared at me and said, "David, you are giving away our oil". These are arrangements that we could have rescinded at any time, but the question in the future is whether our freedom to share our oil resources is in any way further restricted than it is already. Frankly, the IEA is not troubled at all by anything that my noble friend Lord Blackwell is saying. In fact, it provides perfectly adequately for good stock sharing. I do not understand why we need these extra provisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lea, talked about the mirage of energy policy. The real mirage is the EU energy policy because it is not there. If we believe that it is and others carry on because it is not, we will greatly damage the interests of our nation and our people very directly indeed. We want co-operation in Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly said, there is plenty, but we do not need the further transfers of power set out in the treaty. We just do not need them.
	As for biofuels, the European energy advisory agency—a senior body and part of the Brussels Commission structure as I understand it—looked at this matter the other day, and it urged abandonment of the Commission's biofuels targets. It said that they caused environmental damage and that they were having an effect on world food prices. That now appears to be the policy of the British Government as well.

Baroness Quin: The noble Lord has mentioned biofuels on a number of occasions. Would he at least welcome the latest Commission communication with the aim of moving towards a lower carbon economy? It talks clearly about setting environmental criteria for biofuels and ensuring that the environmental disadvantages of biofuels use do not outweigh the advantages.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I welcome all movements on this front. In fact, the curious situation is that the British Government, through the mouths of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are urging that the European Union should look at its biofuels policy again. The noble Baroness indicates that some second thoughts might be starting to develop, but the EU Commissioner concerned has said very bluntly that he does not see any connection at all between biofuels policy and rising prices. A number of other quite blunt assertions have been made that if this policy changes at all, it will not be by much.
	It is therefore not wise for the Government of this country or the government of Europe to commit to an elaborate new legal base to confer further restraints or further centralisation on these vastly complex areas. We need the co-operation of our neighbours through the interconnector, and the enlargement of the French electrical interconnector was one of the things that I authorised in the early 1980s. However, we do not need a lot of further rules and regulations of the kind proposed in the Bill.
	The Opposition should be strong to anything that will damage the flexibility and existing co-operative arrangements which have worked reasonably well but are about to be tested most vigorously by the coming energy crisis. On the biofuels issue, even the noble Lord, Lord Stern—now a Member of this House, and the apostle of climate change and the need for renewables and so on—warned that Europe was on the wrong track. If we do not have the strength and the freedom to see that others are on the wrong track and to develop our own pattern and perhaps encourage others to develop theirs, if we bind ourselves by these new regulations and provisions, we are making a grave mistake for the future. We will look back in your Lordships' House and see that that is what we have done.
	In the mean time, because the Minister has given certain assurances on the QMV side—and I would like to examine those more carefully—I am prepared to think about this again and perhaps return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 73 to 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Willoughby de Broke: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after "excluding" insert—
	"(i) Article 2, paragraph 230, amending Article 246 TEC (TFEU), relating to the Court of Auditors, and(ii) "

Lord Willoughby de Broke: This group of amendments is probing in nature. It tries to tease out the Government's attitude to the unfortunate situation with the accounts of the European Union and what they think of the role and composition of the Court of Auditors.
	In November last year, the EU audit committee refused to sign off the EU accounts for the 13th year in succession. Its 2006 report issued a qualified opinion on EU expenditure, saying that,
	"errors of legality and regularity still persist in the majority of EU expenditure due to weaknesses in internal control systems both at the Commission and in Member States".
	Please note the words,
	"the majority of EU expenditure".
	The areas of expenditure on which the court has given an adverse opinion account for something like 57 per cent of the EU budget—nearly €50 billion. As I think we are still the second biggest contributor to the EU budget, that means that something like €5 billion or €6 billion of the British taxpayer's contribution is open to fraud.
	Just to put a little flesh on that, I should say that agriculture is one of the areas most prone to this abuse. The EU spent €50 billion funding agriculture in 2006 but, according to the Court of Auditors, €15 billion was not subject to proper checks. The court found that one-quarter of the payments tested at final beneficiary level revealed overpayments. Nearly a quarter of olive growers in Italy, Spain and Greece have declared at least 5 per cent more olive trees than they owned, in some cases netting significant EU funds. Greece, in particular, came in for severe criticism. Again according to Court of Auditors, something like €850 million was paid to Greek farmers under what it called "unsatisfactory control conditions". It also found that 50 per cent of Greek sultana producers should not have qualified for the payments that they received at all. There were high levels of error in the rural development budgets which are supposed to deal with environmental matters. They were aimed mostly at developments for farmers. In seven of the eight cases that the European Court of Auditors investigated, the farmers had not met the necessary commitments to qualify for these grants.
	The court also criticised the Commission's oversight of national agencies, such as the Rural Payments Agency, that make the payments to farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, who is not in his place at the moment, will recall that example rather painfully. It further found that 1998, 10 years ago, was the last time the Commission updated its records on how much money member states owed the EU budget. The report stated:
	"These involve significant sums of money being repaid to the Community budget ... It should be emphasised that these recoveries to the Community budget are funded by national taxpayers, rather than the beneficiaries who have received Community funds irregularly".
	Structural funding was another example. The court noticed little improvement in the €32 billion budget and said that the situation remained similar to previous years—that is, entirely unsatisfactory. Of the projects that the court audited, only 31 per cent were found free from error. It warned that there was a high risk that the project costs were overstated and that there were large numbers of claims for ineligible expenditure. The report states that there is generally a lack of evidence to support the calculation of overheads or the staff costs involved. As well as criticising the member states on the control of these funds, the court also criticised the Commission's supervision of how the funding was spent. It said that,
	"the Court again found a material level of error in the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, mainly due to reimbursements to beneficiaries who had overstated the costs for projects".
	There are a number of really worrying developments there. It is not as if it was just one or two years; this is the 13th year in which the accounts have failed to be passed. The Commission has always tried to say that it is not its problem but is due to the member states not being able to control the budgets or the money that it gives them. It has always said that the responsibility for the fraud is at national level and not with itself. The Court of Auditors comes down quite severely on the Commission on this point. It criticises the Commission for attempting to spin its findings and blame member states.
	Article 274 of the Maastricht treaty reminds us of the situation. It is the Commission's direct responsibility to uphold a "sound financial management". The European Court repeats that by saying:
	"Regardless of the method of implementation applied, the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts of the European Communities (Article 274 of the Treaty)".
	The Commission tried to put a positive spin on the report by saying that,
	"in significant parts of the EU budget, the Directors-General give a more positive account of the legality and regularity of EU spending than is consistent with the Court's audit".
	Coming from one of the European Union's own bodies, that is quite a damning verdict. I believe that Europe's taxpayers deserve better.
	I now turn to the useful report of the European Union Select Committee of 2006. I am very pleased to see the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Radice, in the Committee. Of the two reports, I refer to the second one—the committee's response to the government response to its recommendations; that is, the Government and other bodies mentioned. I want to see whether there is any improvement following the suggestions and recommendations made in this useful report. It made some good recommendations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who sadly is not in his usual place this afternoon. He is a swivel-eyed Europhile, keeping an eye on swivel-eyed Europhobes. He is normally only too pleased to do that. For example—this issue is covered in one of the amendments I am speaking to—he suggested:
	="We must look once again at the structure of the Court of Auditors itself. With a Court of Auditors for six member states, having one from each member state was okay. It still worked when it was nine, and 10, 12 and 15; but to have a member of the Court of Auditors from each member state in a court of 25, and then 27, each with their own cabinet, creates a top-heavy structure. I hope that Sub-Committee A can at some time return to its excellent work in looking at the Court of Auditors and come up with new ideas on the structure for the audit court itself." [Official Report, 5/3/07; col. 93]
	I note that in the treaty there is still a provision for one member of the Court of Auditors from every member state. I do not know whether there is any further thought on that or whether that is slightly arcane and rather like moving the deck chairs around on the "Titanic"—however many members the Court of Auditors has does not seem to make much difference to the EU accounts.
	I want to raise three more points with the Minister, although I do not expect her to answer them this afternoon. She has an enormous brief which she carries out—if I may say so without sounding too smarmy—with great charm and patience. My raise my first point by noting that the committee said:
	"We support calls for the European Court of Auditors to produce a list of those Member States demonstrating poor management of European funds".
	The Government replied to that by saying:
	"The Government would welcome this recommendation".
	Has this happened? Is there a list of member states demonstrating poor management of European funds? If there is such a list, is the United Kingdom on it?
	The second recommendation in this report is:
	"We are strongly in favour of a national Statement of Assurance on the monies disbursed in each Member State."
	It goes on to say that the Dutch do this and that we should follow that. The Government reply to that recommendation was:
	"The Government agrees and announced on 20 November its intention to provide an annual consolidated statement of the UK's use of EU funds, which would then be audited to international standards by the National Audit Office. Both the consolidated statement and audit opinion would be presented to Parliament and made available to the European Court of Auditors and European Commission".
	Again, has this happened? I have not seen such a report presented to Parliament but I stand corrected if it has.
	Finally, the committee recommended very sensibly that,
	"we consider that there is a clear role for national parliaments: not least because in the UK, for example, there is considerable misunderstanding of the real position".
	It goes on to say that there is misreporting in the newspapers about the whole thing and that the problem is not really with the accounts but with the way it is reported in the Murdoch-ite press so beloved by the Liberal Democrats. The committee said:
	"The Government welcomes this recommendation. It is important to discuss these issues in Parliament".
	Again, has this happened or is it going to happen? I repeat that I do not expect the Minister to reply in detail to these questions this afternoon but perhaps if she cannot do that she could write to me and put a copy of that letter in the House.
	Is this not still a rather unsatisfactory position? We have had 13 years of qualified accounts and there does not seem to be any real progress on this. We are told it does not really matter, that it is just a formality and that the EU accounts are absolutely satisfactory but that is not the case. It is a huge amount of money and it is not satisfactorily accounted for by the EU's own Court of Auditors. I wonder whether the Government have any ideas on how to improve this situation. Perhaps an international firm of accountants could be asked to run an eye over the EU accounts to see what the problem is or perhaps methodological means should be used. Perhaps, in the future, Europe Day could be not 9 May but the day when the European Union accounts are finally approved by the Court of Auditors. I beg to move.

Lord Radice: The noble Lord has tempted me to reply, as he mentioned the Select Committee report. However, perhaps I may first ask him a question. I noticed that he did not say what the purpose of his amendment was—that is, apart from the fact that it gives him the opportunity to speak. I certainly do not understand the amendment. Is he proposing to remove the Court of Auditors or is he proposing ways of improving the Court of Auditors? Perhaps he could answer that before I continue.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I agree that this was not mentioned in the report but the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Tomlinson suggested that the Court of Auditors could be improved by not having a member from each of the 27 member states. That may be an improvement, but I also have a question for the Government. Might there be a better way than using the Court of Auditors? At the moment, European accounts are a very grey area, notwithstanding all the reports that we have had and the questions that have been raised over the years. I repeat: these accounts have failed to be passed for 13 years in succession. There must be a better way of doing things.

Lord Radice: I was asking the noble Lord to explain his amendment, not what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said. I do not understand the purpose of the amendment, apart from, as I said, giving him an opportunity to speak.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: It provides an opportunity to probe what we are going to do about the continual misapplication of funds in the European Union. Surely that is worth debating in this Chamber, particularly when the Court of Auditors is mentioned in some detail in the Lisbon treaty.

Lord Radice: I agree that it is useful to discuss that, but should we do so on the basis of an amendment which would weaken the Court of Auditors? I am not certain and that is why I asked the noble Lord to explain the purpose of his amendment. He is right to say that it is a matter of regret that the European Court of Auditors has not been able to give a positive statement of assurance, although he might have mentioned that that does not necessarily indicate that high levels of fraudulent or corrupt transactions have taken place. In addition, Sir John Bourn, who was the head of our National Audit Office, told us that, were he required to do so, he would be unable to give a positive statement of assurance for the UK accounts similar to one that would be issued by the European Court of Auditors. I am not suggesting that this is not a matter of concern but I am suggesting that it should be put in context.
	The noble Lord is also right to say that we were strongly in favour of the introduction of national statements of assurance signed by a Minister and senior civil servants, and, like him, I should like to know what is happening on that front and what the Government are doing about it. Of course, as more than 80 per cent of European funds are dispersed within member states, the Commission alone cannot be held responsible for the irregularity of these transactions. The national Governments have to take responsibility as well.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Under the treaties, the chief financial officer of the Commission is responsible. Surely the Commission could say to countries with which they were not satisfied, "You're not getting any more money until you satisfy us that it is not disappearing in fraud and other irregularities".

Lord Radice: I see that I have three noble friends who want to get involved in this debate. It is true that the Commission has a role in this under the treaty. My point is that it cannot be held solely responsible; national Governments have a responsibility as well. I hope that our Government, who have agreed with that point, are going to take this matter very seriously and produce a statement of assurance.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not affected by whether my erstwhile noble friend moved his amendment for particular reasons; he has provided an opportunity for others to ask questions. I am going to ask one which, frankly, somewhat embarrasses me, but has been prompted by listening to the debate today.
	Twenty years ago, I was on the Budget Council and the Minister responsible for just about everything in the Treasury that came in the housekeeping category—I was the only one of the eight Ministers who served in the Treasury, during my time, who had never worked in the City. Whether it was thought that I understood the outside world I do not know; it was certainly thought that I might be usefully employed on matters which were not related to the City. The then Treasury, under my noble friend Lord Lawson, introduced a special unit to assist the rest of government with issues of purchasing and procurement. I can recall driving to see the Court of Auditors, after a Budget Council meeting, through a profound fog—climatically apposite to the subject we were looking at. I recall being told on that occasion that I was the first president of the Budget Council who had ever visited the Court of Auditors; that is a little alarming since 1986 was some 29 years after the foundation of the Community.
	The question I want to ask relates to the second unit, for which I was responsible, in relation to procurement and purchasing. As we set that up, we recruited able people from the private sector to come and look at how government entities were handling the ordinary efficiencies of their job. One young man had taken an interest in the costs that were being incurred by the storage of commodities under the CAP and related matters. He realised that the storage was being charged and costed at a rate which was rising in line with the retail price index. He took the trouble to go down and visit the various storage contractors around the country and was very struck by the ubiquity of BMWs in their car parks. As a consequence, he made further inquiries into what the ordinary movement of costs in the storage industry were and discovered that we were going through a happy technological period where the costs were going vertically downward. I am not going to go any further into that issue. I have made the important points about it. What interests me—it embarrasses me that I did not ask the question at the time— is how far there is a system for communication and collation within the Union, either at the level of the Commission, or at the level of the Court of Auditors under which good practice in individual countries is reported on and thereby reflected in other countries within the Union.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Radice, asked what the purpose of this amendment was. It is to probe the arrangements that the EU has to control fraud within its finances. It is very relevant for that matter to be discussed in this Parliament because we contribute about £12 billion a year towards the finances of the European Union. That is taxpayers' money which should be taken proper care of and should not be converted to fraudulent use. So this is an excellent opportunity to discuss this matter, although not at great length.
	I remember—as most of us in this Chamber will—the late Lord Bruce of Donington, who spent half his life in investigating the fraud in the EU and the role of the Court of Auditors and how we could improve matters so that fraud did not exist or was at least reduced. Prime Ministers have got involved in this because they are so concerned about it. Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, was very concerned; I think she actually mentioned a figure of £6 billion which was converted fraudulently. Various other people, including the Government, are concerned about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sees that a lot of the fraud is caused through the CAP, which is one of the reasons he wants to get rid of it.

Lord Dykes: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for introducing an extraneous comparison. He mentioned a figure of £6 billion; was it not interesting to reminisce about the exact same figure, which was the cost of the repair job done by the then Conservative Government after the collapse of the poll tax?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord is usually spot-on with his interventions, but I think he is a little out of line with this one. I do not believe that fraud was involved in the introduction of the poll tax, so I do not see its relevance to our present debate. In any event, that was nothing to do with the EU—it was everything to do with a mistake by a Tory Government, which we all resent, and which the Tory Party has always regretted. That is a diversion from this debate, which is important. A very good Prime Minister who was with it, who understood finance and was very well qualified was concerned about this £6 billion worth of fraud, so we ought to be concerned about it too.
	The objective of the amendment is to get the Government involved in finding a different and better means of controlling fraud within the European Union. Our own Public Accounts Committee does quite a good job, but that is not relevant to the EU.

Baroness Ludford: I was rather surprised at what the noble Lord has just said. I agree that member states should be more involved in countering fraud, but the other amendment, which is part of this group, seeks to remove the obligations on the EU institutions in member states to counter fraud. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, asked the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the reason for the amendment, which appears to seek to abolish the Court of Auditors, and was told that it was just a probing amendment so that we could discuss the matter. Surely that does not justify the other amendment which wants to take out the obligations on the EU institutions of the member states to counter fraud. The new Article 325 in the treaty says that the Union and the member states shall counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the Union's financial interests and that member states shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the Union's financial interests as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests. This is a very important part of the treaty. The noble Lord said that we want member states to get more involved in countering fraud, yet the amendment wants to take out the fraud-busting provisions in the treaty, so I am quite puzzled.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Some of us do not have confidence in the existing arrangements and we are not sure that the proposed arrangements will be any better. They will certainly not be any better unless the Government can tell us exactly how they would proceed under them. What ideas do they have to improve them? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us exactly what the Government's view is. We can then perhaps be satisfied and the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, may well want to withdraw his amendment, although that is a matter for him.

Lord Dykes: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, for asking such a pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, although he did not receive an answer. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I recognise that he said that this is a probing amendment, tabled to reiterate some of the discussions that have been held before. However, he rather repeated all the points. A feature of the UKIP contributions is the constant, inexorable and relentless repetition of points, even when they are not necessarily accurate. I accept that there is a serious problem with fraud in the EU member states, which has to be tackled.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am sorry—

Lord Dykes: I am going to rest on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, although he is no longer in his place. He said that, in order for us to make more progress, he would not necessarily give way. I am invoking my right not to give way. I would love to give way, but the debate goes on too long.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will of course have a right of reply at the end of the debate, so perhaps he can deal with the matter then.

Lord Dykes: I am grateful to the Lord President for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, if we give way all the time—much as I would love to for the purposes of the debate and the exchanges—we just get, at excessive length, the propaganda from UKIP, of which there are two Members, with the independent Labour Member sometimes supporting them. Other colleagues genuinely wish to make progress with the Bill. I feel that a majority of Members—without our being oppressive of the minority views—is in favour of beginning to accelerate the progress of the Committee, albeit in a way that is not undemocratic and does not deprive people of the opportunity of saying a few words. The realistic appraisal is that there is a strong majority in your Lordships' House for the treaty and therefore for passing this Bill. A lot of patience has been shown to the UKIP Members, which I feel they should acknowledge by making shorter speeches. Indeed, I am sorry for the length of my remarks in dealing with that matter.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, had correctly answered the question that he was asked, he would have said, "I'll withdraw the amendment and will support the provision in the treaty". I believe that everyone agrees that the Court of Auditors needs substantially to increase resources. It is now dealing with 27 member states and needs, without going too far overboard and being too expensive, to be a much more powerful body in terms of personnel. The problem of having one person from each member state also needs to be solved, although the main problem relates to the detailed administration travelling down through the member states to the ground.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was referring to examples in the United Kingdom when he mentioned the young man, which gives me the opportunity to remind colleagues that there have been cases of fraud in the UK, too, although I mean no disgrace to redound on any British Government. Indeed, the UK has often been quite high on the Court of Auditors' list in its measurement of fraud. That is partly because of the sad reality that there were certain dodgy people in the City a few years ago who were very good at devising equally dodgy agricultural investment schemes. The combination of our strength in agricultural management as an industry—unlike in Germany, where industry is strong but agriculture has always been weak and fragmented—and the City spivs to whom I referred, although obviously without mentioning any names, was powerful and explosive in creating some interesting and ingenious schemes some 10 to 12 years ago. The reality must be that we should support the Court of Auditors in its work.
	Because of time, I will not refer to Amendments Nos. 80A and 85, except to say that they are part of the same picture. The European Court of Auditors has done a good job and the sovereign member states have their own responsibility to respond to the central responsibility of the Commission and the Court of Auditors to ensure that money is managed properly. Putting 27 national public finance and financial management cultures together in the increasingly enlarged European Union is a difficult task for both the Commission and the Court of Auditors. In many ways, they have done a marvellous job. As a Member of the other place, I made various visits to the Court of Auditors; one could only be struck by its efficiency and expertise in dealing with these matters.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I was not going to intervene, but the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, are too tempting. I remind him that the propaganda budget—the information budget, as I think it is called—of the European Union is somewhat larger than that of the UK Independence Party.
	Now that I am on my feet, perhaps I may put an idea to the Government. I have put it to them before in these proceedings, but I did not get an answer. My idea is based on our agreement that the Court of Auditors is the least malign of the institutions of the European Union. None the less, it is still part of the EU; it is the EU's internal auditor. There is no external auditor as anyone understands that expression for these vast amounts of money that we pour down the throat of this octopus in Brussels. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there is no equivalent even of our Public Accounts Committee.
	My idea is that, as a major contributor to this budget, we should simply withhold our contributions until Brussels appoints a major firm of international auditors, chosen by the donor nations, to oversee the accounts of the European Union. If that means standing down the Court of Auditors, so what? As noble Lords will know, we in the UK Independence Party do not mind if the whole thing collapses. However, surely a firm of international auditors appointed to work either alongside the Court of Auditors or in the nation states might take us some way forward. I fear that nothing else will, despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and his Europhile friends.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was very sensible, so I am slightly mystified by some of the reactions to it. If anything, I thought that he erred on the side of euphemism. He referred to a number of "worrying developments" and said that he found the situation "rather unsatisfactory". I believe that the situation that we have been discussing is unacceptable and must be resolved as quickly as possible. As he reminded us, the Court of Auditors has not been able to sign off the EU's accounts for 13 years. One would have thought that, by now, we would have sorted it out.
	The noble Lord, Lord Radice, intervened to question exactly what the amendments would do and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as he was trying to stress the importance of some of the substantial figures involved. It is quite clear to me that Amendment No. 79 gives us the opportunity to examine the membership of the Court of Auditors. Should it consist of one national of each member state? Should there be independent members? Is this the right provision? Amendment No. 80A, which we are taking in this group, enables us to examine whether the right words are used. Should they refer only to examining,
	"fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union",
	or should other areas be included in the terms of reference? Finally, Amendment No. 85 gives us the opportunity to examine the reports of the Court of Auditors. I thought that all the diversion, which took about 10 to 15 minutes, was a little irrelevant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Radice, does not mind my saying this, as I believe that the committee of which he is a member has done a good job in raising a number of key questions, to which we still await answers.
	The European Commission tends to blame national Governments for why the accounts are not signed off. But the Court of Auditors says it is the Commission, so we really have to examine who is right.
	In the preliminary draft Budget debate, Mr Ed Balls said:
	"The Commission has given an assurance in its action plan that its intention is to get a budget fully signed off by the European Court of Auditors, with a statement of assurance, by 2009".
	That is next year. He continued:
	"In the ECOFIN conclusions that were agreed in November, a series of steps was set out in the action plan, in relation to improving payment systems and control systems, simplifying regulations, and putting in place proper integrated internal frameworks, to ensure that we can get a grip on the errors and irregularities that ... have plagued the European budget for more than a decade ... We need to make progress and I have made that clear".—[Official Report, Commons European Standing Committee, 11/7/06; col. 11.]
	We all await the words of the noble Baroness with great interest.
	I would like to add to the questions that have, quite rightly, been raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville—who, having visited the Court of Auditors, probably knows more about this than anyone else—and other noble Lords. What progress has there been on implementing the action plan? How close do the Government feel that the Commission is to meeting its target of getting the Court of Auditors to sign off a budget by next year?
	I support the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on what further consideration the Government have given to the recommendation of, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Radice, that there should be annual debates on audit and financial matters? In the report, it was discovered that Spain and the UK account for more than half of the quantifiable errors in structural policies in the 2006 annual report. What have we done to improve that?
	These are really important issues because this is one of the areas where, outside this House, our vision of Europe is always attacked—particularly by some of the press—for what has happened. I hope that we are all resolved that we must get this put right. What are the Government going to do?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am extremely grateful to all who have spoken. I am aware that we had quite a lengthy debate earlier in Committee and I will therefore not repeat all the things that I said before. I will take those as read for the purpose of this debate, but will try to deal with the questions that have been raised. I love the idea that I might be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on an issue to do with Europe. I fear that that will never ever happen—if it does, the drinks are on me.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, very eloquently said in his support of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and his amendment, this is an important issue and one that concerns the UK Government. I know that noble Lords will also not mind if I make clear that we have to make a very important distinction between fraudulent activity and activity of errors. In his references to the UK and Spain, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, described errors. That does not mean that errors should not be put right, but I would not want noble Lords to think that the position held by the European Union in the main is to do with fraud. That is not to diminish the issue of fraud in people's minds, but to be absolutely clear.
	It is clear that most of the irregularities and errors are resolved after the reports come out. In other words, these issues are not about finances going astray but are rather issues of not complying strictly with the rules and regulations that apply, and therefore are dealt with. None the less, I do not think the figure is 31 per cent as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said—only 40 per cent is able to be signed off at present. I am not trying to suggest that these are not important issues, but a lot of the ways in which they can be dealt with are by making sure that member states and the Commission take responsibility for ensuring that they fulfil their obligations properly, rather than making assumptions about fraud, although that plays its part.
	I will not go through all the different concerns that we addressed before but will rather focus on what noble Lords want to hear in answer to their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked about the production of a list. He asked me three questions and I will try to answer him as fully as possible. First, there is not yet a list, as such. I will let him know if I can find out any more information about whether there are any plans for such a list. I will copy that letter to any of your Lordships who participated in the debate and to the Library as well, but as far as I am concerned there is not a list.
	We want to make sure that we continue to press for these issues to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The UK has played an important role—for example, in setting up the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF. It is a very active anti-fraud office and has had successes. It has looked at complaints where, for example, more than €20 million has been wrongly claimed and has been able to reclaim that money, at flax producers in 2001 where there had been a false declaration that straw was unsuitable for processing, and at all aspects of fisheries and so on. It has been able to deal with examples of fraud very effectively. We were instrumental in making sure that we had an EU anti-fraud office.
	I have already said that we are concerned to make sure that we play our part. We will be publishing a consolidated statement on the use of EU funds in the UK. That will be audited by the National Audit Office and will give Parliament a greater role in scrutinising it. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked whether that had yet been published. It will be published soon, but we are waiting for the National Audit Office to finalise its work; once that is ready the statement will be published—but it rests with the NAO, not the Government at present.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked what had happened to the Commission's action plan—the report that it produced on progress. A progress report has been produced and most of its points have now been dealt with. The Commission was going to produce a further report on the implementation later this year. As the noble Lord indicated, Mr Balls said in another place that it is the Commission's objective to try to strive for a positive statement of assurance by 2009 as well. There is clearly an impetus.
	In our negotiations on the reform treaty and the constitution which preceded them, the UK has been keen to make as much progress as possible and we have put forward positive suggestions. I do not accept the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that we should simply withhold the money. That is not the right approach. I can understand why he would feel that even the most dire consequences of so doing would not matter, but that is not the way that we should try to ensure that we get a better outcome and more satisfactory progress.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who is probably the most experienced person here as he has visited the European Court of Auditors, asked about good practice. It is a very important question and I mouthed as much to him, because if we can get more progress in spreading good practice that would be a better proposition. The UK, the Netherlands and Denmark have already published, or will publish, their own initiatives on the use of EU funds. Sweden has also announced that it too will be doing so, or something similar in any event. We hope that other areas will follow suit and that being able to see what is being done across member states will be a good way of demonstrating good practice.
	We also have various working groups. There is a working group on Article 280 which is trying to look at co-operation and the prevention of fraud where good practice and best practice across member states plays its part. Good practice is beginning to be seen as a way of combating at least the irregularities of the issues before the European Court of Auditors and the European Union.
	The scrutiny committees of both Houses have commented on the report of the Court of Auditors. The Commission recently issued a report of member states' responses made to it in the 2006 ECA report, which was considered in the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in March 2008. The committee recommended a general debate. I agree with noble Lords that it is very important to make sure that Parliament is able to debate, not just through this treaty but in more general terms, what is happening on these important issues. I hope that the work of the National Audit Office, when we get it, will provide another opportunity for the committees to consider the matter and perhaps recommend to the House through the usual channels whether we need to debate those matters further.
	The UK has been very keen to push forward proposals and think about how we might reform the European Court of Auditors. Perhaps, as noble Lords have said, a committee that was set up originally for nine member states now doing the same thing for 27 has a large task. Perhaps there is a better way in which to do that, with an executive board of auditors-general and a more strategic approach. We will continue to press on that. It is clear from the discussions that I have had and from looking through the detail, not least in response to thinking about these amendments, that a lot of work is under way. While it is difficult to see how we can get 100 per cent certainty from the European Court of Auditors, with 27 member states and a Commission—not because of fraud but because of irregularities—the more that we can spread good practice, the more we can push to ensure that the auditing position is the best that it can be. The more that member states and the Commission take responsibility for ensuring the best possible practice and the best way in which to root out any fraudulent activity, then so much the better.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these probing amendments in what I think has been a useful debate.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am grateful to almost everyone who took part in this short debate, particularly to the Minister for a very full reply. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Radice, did not think that I was criticising his report—far from it. I used his second report to make a number of points and ask questions that I think are relevant. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for enlarging on my points and introducing his own questions. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who is the only one of us who has been at the European audit coal face.
	I said "almost all". I was not particularly pleased with the useless intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. He did not contribute anything to the debate. He said that he wanted to get on with the debate and then spoke for longer than I took on my introductory remarks. I cannot think that that added to the debate at all. Why I wanted to intervene was because he accused me of saying things that were not accurate; I believe that that was his gist. I refute that utterly. Everything that I said came either from the report from the European sub-committee of this House, or from the report of the European Court of Auditors, so what I said was entirely factual and absolutely nothing to do with any propaganda, as he may have feared. I fear that it is the true state of European Union finances at the moment, and nothing fanciful.
	I am most grateful to the Minister for having answered our questions so clearly and I am satisfied with the answer to those questions. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 80 and 80A not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 83A not moved.]

Lord Willoughby de Broke: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84:
	Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after "excluding" insert—
	"(i) Annexed Protocol on the role of National Parliaments in the European Union; and(ii) "

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I do not propose to move this amendment but I want to make it clear that I shall talk to the issues arising from it under a later amendment in my name.

[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 85 to 89 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after "excluding" insert—
	"(i) any provision that gives Her Majesty's Government authority to agree to pay, or to pay, any financial penalty imposed as a result of a decision by Her Majesty's Government not to opt in, or to opt out of, any provision; and(ii) "

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We move on now to deal with something that my noble friend Lord Kingsland raised briefly late on Monday in the discussion on the provisions relating to justice and home affairs co-operation. I should like to deal with the matter in more depth.
	Our concerns with the possibility of financial penalties being imposed on the UK are, of course, inextricably linked with our concerns over just how feasible it will be to exercise our right not to opt-in. The amendment would give us the opportunity to examine the financial penalties consequent on the UK opting in or out of any of the Lisbon treaty provisions. These concerns are entirely shared by the European Scrutiny Committee, which has of course on several occasions reported on the uncertain consequences of exercising this right, and on our ability to safeguard the interests of the UK.
	These financial penalties will be levied on the UK if our refusal to opt into an amended measure makes the existing measure inoperable, so the whole package has to be disregarded. The Government will no doubt respond that the provisions allow for only "necessary and unavoidable" financial consequences to be charged to the UK, in what I know they regard as the highly unlikely event of the provisions being implemented. But how can the Minister and her colleagues know this? There is no consensus on what future provisions for integration in this area may look like, so how can we predict whether we will wish to opt in or not? To add to this, the decisions on the inoperability of an existing measure, and on what the "necessary and unavoidable" financial consequences are, are both to be made by QMV—so again, we have no control over exactly what our European neighbours might choose to make us do.
	The chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, Michael Connarty, was utterly clear in his opinion of these provisions when questioning the Foreign Secretary on the matter. He said,
	"do not pretend that this is not a bullying tactic by whoever proposed it to pressurise the UK ... These are bullying clauses and I am shocked that you try to defend them".
	I await the Minister's comments.
	It is unlikely that the Government will be persuaded by me when they were not necessarily persuaded by one of their own colleagues, but I would like to hear them at least attempt to explain why these provisions were allowed to remain in. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful for the opportunity. The noble Lord is normally very persuasive.
	We have been very successful in securing the opt-ins, which we will no doubt debate at greater length, so I shall not dwell on the principles behind them. Noble Lords will know that we already have the capacity in some areas to exercise the opt-in and that I exercised or declined to exercise the opt-in when I was a Minister in what is now the Ministry of Justice. I am, then, quite familiar with the process involved here. I am also well aware that, in securing this big and important change, the UK Government expanded our ability to opt into the entire justice and home affairs arena. I believe that is important for the UK, for all the reasons that your Lordships have raised and will be raising about ensuring that we are clear about our co-operation and collaboration within the European Union—not least, for example, that our desire to retain control of our own borders in matters regarding them would not lead us to an opt-in.
	Having got that security, it is important to recognise that there are implications for the European Union's entire operation. Personally, I think it quite reasonable that the implications of getting such security are considered by the whole Union. In so doing, it is reasonable to say that if a member state is actively engaged in a European Union operation and decides that, as a consequence of changes having been made in the collapse of the Third Pillar and the move to the First, it no longer wishes to participate, should that operation become inoperable then there will be consequences facing the other 26 member states if a process—an IT system, perhaps—no longer functions at all.
	Those consequences would, clearly, result from the UK's decision. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might well agree that it is difficult to think of real examples of that. I cannot think of any where that would currently be the case, yet just as one is always trying to think strategically about the consequence of the UK's involvement, so it is quite reasonable to think strategically about the UK taking a decision not to participate in something.
	These are measured proposals within the treaty. To be clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, elegantly laid out, where the test is "inoperable", could that be defended in court and could we argue against it? Yes, it could be defended but the decision would have to be that it was inoperable. It would then be decided by qualified majority voting whether, as the noble Lord says, we needed to bear the financial costs in consequence. Before the European Union could demand anything of the UK, there are those very high tests, so I disagree with my honourable friend Mr Connarty, as I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did in responding to him. I cannot remember his exact response, but I am sure he did that.
	I am clear that this is about not bullying but ensuring that, if we and the European Union were in that position, we are all clear that there are consequences for us all. I have no difficulty with what is proposed, and I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that response and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We are in the realms of the unpredictable, and it is difficult to contemplate the circumstances in which all this would operate. However, when the Government were preparing to decide whether to agree to these provisions I know that there would have been a detailed brief presented to Ministers on what consequences there could be. The Minister says that it is difficult to work out the situations that might occur, but I am sure that a particular Minister, before agreeing to these provisions, would have received a brief that contained all sorts of possibilities. I wonder whether I might appeal again to the Minister, who said a little earlier that she often finds me persuasive, to return to her colleagues and officials and see whether they might be prepared to release all or part of that brief to me, so that I can start to contemplate what is—and I share this with her—difficult to visualise at the moment. She nods; I am delighted, and thank her very much.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I have two examples. I used the one about IT software; the other was that if we were to withdraw from our involvement in an agency there would be consequential costs in bringing our staff home. As the noble Lord would expect, I had asked, "Can we think of examples?", and I have been given those two, which, although highly unlikely, were the two most obvious where our withdrawal might have consequential costs. It would be quite reasonable, then, to argue that the UK should cover the costs of taking its own staff away or of settling their contracts, which would disappear, et cetera. I do not believe that there are any more, but if I find any then I will certainly send them to the noble Lord. He would expect me to say that, and I would do so.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: That is all I needed to hear and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 111 to 114 not moved.]

Lord Blackwell: moved Amendment No. 115:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
	"United Kingdom courts: independence
	Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring United Kingdom courts to enforce judgements of the European Court of Justice relating to civil or criminal law or police and judicial processes that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament."

Lord Blackwell: This straightforward amendment seeks to establish that nothing in this Bill or the treaty of Lisbon changes the position requiring the UK courts to enforce judgments of the European Court of Justice in the specific areas of civil or criminal law, or police and judicial processes, that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament.
	In our debate earlier this week on the provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice I made the point that justice and policing was an area that belongs within a nation state. The electorate of a nation expect to be able to elect a Parliament and Government that have ultimate control over their criminal law and judicial processes. I fully accept—although I may not like it—that, where the UK agrees to opt in to a measure on freedom, security and justice and then passes a law to apply that measure here, we will be signing up to the jurisdiction of the European Court on any measure in that area.
	Indeed, as we noted during the week, the European Court can take the UK Government to task if it believes that they have not implemented a measure effectively in the UK. The question that follows is: if there is a dispute, who decides which law applies in the UK? Can someone apply to the UK courts for a court interpretation of the will of the UK Parliament, or is the UK court system trumped by the European Court of Justice, which has a superior position in interpreting that will?
	Moreover, if the UK Parliament responded to an ECJ judgment by passing a new law that made explicit what the provisions of that law were meant to be in the United Kingdom, would the UK court system uphold the will of this Parliament, or would it regard itself as having to uphold decisions by the European Court of Justice? It is important that we are clear on these issues at this point.
	In the area of freedom, security and justice, where we may not have opted in, judgments will be made and precedents developed within the rest of the European Community and it is quite possible, following precedent, that those judgments may be taken as setting precedents. Then we have the situation that, even in an area where we have not opted in, our legal system may start to define UK law based on judgments elsewhere in the European community. Much of that is normal process, but if our UK courts are asked to interpret a law according to a law passed by the UK Parliament, can we be clear that the UK Parliament's law will take precedence over the importation of precedents from the European legal system? Will judgments in the area of security, freedom and justice—where we have opted in—to do with cross-border disputes, as all measures under that area are supposed to be, nevertheless become precedents that become a determining factor in the UK legal system?
	Then we come on to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which, as we know, has the same effect in the UK as elsewhere, despite our protocol, and is binding in its consequences. The question arises of whether it can be used as an appeal mechanism to appeal against UK laws on the basis that a UK law passed by the UK Parliament offends, in the eyes of the European Court of Justice at least, against some of the measures in it. If so, will the European Court of Justice have the final say on the matter or will it be the UK courts?
	I am not a lawyer, and I confess that many of these issues puzzle me. I have listened to many lawyers arguing them without coming to a clear resolution. My amendment attempts to put this matter beyond doubt by stating:
	"Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring United Kingdom courts to enforce judgements of the European Court of Justice",
	in this area,
	"that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament".
	I live in hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will respond to this by saying, "Yes, of course that's true and therefore I am quite happy to accept this amendment and add it to the face of the Bill". If she cannot accept it, it is incumbent on her and the Government to spell out that under this Act and treaty they are asking us to accept that the ECJ should have the power to override laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament because if she does not accept this amendment, that is what she is telling us. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 116, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, not moved.]

Lord Slynn of Hadley: I congratulate the noble Lord on making the issue that he raises as clear as it could possibly be. This amendment is as direct, clear and, I respectfully suggest, potentially destructive as any of the other amendments before your Lordships today. There is no way that a regional system of justice can avoid accepting the principle of uniformity. It is essential in the European Union that there should be a court that will give a final interpretation and a final determination on questions of European law. Those decisions must be applicable in every member state of the European Union. That principle of law has been applied for 50 years. It is a principle that, until this amendment, I had not heard challenged with quite such directness. The noble Lord is, of course, perfectly entitled to do so, and I respect his view, but it would mean that in future—leaving aside the areas that he says he would accept as being within the remit of the European court—there can be no area in which any decision of the European court can lay down a principle that must be followed by the national courts. If the principle in this amendment is to apply in the United Kingdom, it should also apply in the member states, and we should now have not six, not 15, not even 25, but 27 and perhaps more judgments and definitions given by the courts of all the countries. The chaos would be absolute. I respectfully submit that this amendment is not one that the Committee should contemplate for a moment accepting or giving effect to.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It would be presumptuous of me to speak at any length after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, has spoken. I remember with great affection that it is half a century since, sitting on the bed of Queen Victoria at Trinity College, Cambridge, he attempted to teach me the history of the law of assumpsit. For the past 50 years, ever since being his pupil, I have sat at his feet. There is no greater living authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, when it comes to the relationship between European Union law and this country's domestic law. I shall therefore be extremely brief and shall not repeat anything he said.
	Ever since 1972, when we joined the Common Market, it has been quite clear in the European Communities Act, which was crafted principally by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, that Section 2 requires all three branches of government in this country, where European law reigns supreme, to give full effect to that law whether passing laws, interpreting laws or giving effect to those laws. It was clear at the time, it was made clear in a case I once argued before Lord Denning called McCarthy's v Smith, it was later made absolutely clear in the Factortame case by the Law Lords and made clearer yet again in the case involving the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Secretary of State for Employment. In all those cases, a provision in an Act of Parliament was in conflict with the paramount law of the European Community. For example, in the Factortame case, as everyone knows, a provision in the Merchant Shipping Act discriminated on grounds of nationality in the area of fisheries. That case went to Luxembourg and came back again—it went several times—but it was made quite clear by Lord Bridge that the Merchant Shipping Act's discriminatory provisions had to be displaced in favour of the binding European rule of equal treatment without nationality discrimination. To take quickly another example, in the EOC case, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 stated that people had to work so many hours a week in order to get employment benefits. That was in conflict with the European equality directive which requires equality for women without discrimination as it hit disproportionately at women who could not work full time, and the Law Lords again decided that the domestic provision had to be read and given effect so as to remove the sex discrimination against women. There is no doubt whatever about the relationship. The sovereign Parliament can decide to repeal the 1972 Act, but could do so only if we were to leave the European Union. Unless it did so, the position is as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, has stated, far more eloquently than I can. That is the first main point: parliamentary supremacy gives way, because we exercised parliamentary sovereignty in 1972, to the paramount law of the European Union, only where that paramount law reigns.
	As far as the Charter of Fundamental Rights is concerned, the report of the Select Committee of this House, to which I was privileged to contribute, made it clear beyond argument, article by article, that the charter posed no threat whatever to our internal legal system. No one has pointed to any provision where that could arise. It does not give rise to a problem.
	Finally, I will speak briefly to Amendment No. 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. That will save my doing so again later. I will explain briefly why—with great respect—it is, for similar reasons, misconceived. Amendment No. 127 seeks to allow anyone living in the United Kingdom to apply to the High Court for a declaration on any question of interpretation of the Lisbon treaty, even though there is no need to determine the rights or liabilities of the applicant. On that first point, that is entirely a matter for our own courts at present. I have no doubt that, in a proper case, they would think it right to grant a declaration on matters of interpretation.
	The second point is that a Minister or others can apply. That is otiose— unnecessary—because they could already do so under our well-known principles of administrative law. The third point, which is the nub of the amendment, is the suggestion that an interpretation of the treaty, made on an application brought under this section, must be consistent with the interpretation given to the treaty by the UK Parliament at the time the Act was passed. That is unlawful under the law of the European Union because it would seek to make this Parliament master of the interpretation to be given of the treaty, rather than the European Court of Justice, which is the final court on questions of that kind. In other words, it would be another way of seeking to invoke parliamentary sovereignty in a way that was unlawful under European law.
	Sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (6), which I will not bore the Chamber by reading, are all well-recognised in existing administrative law and procedure, and would be unnecessary. The vice of Amendment No. 127, like that of the amendment we are now concentrating on, is that it seeks to elevate Parliament into a position contrary to the European Communities Act 1972, and contrary to the supreme law of the European Union.

Lord Owen: I hesitate to intervene, particularly after two speeches by a noble Lord and a noble and learned Lord whose views I respect and who, I am fully aware, know a great deal more about this subject than I do. I have been studying this legislation for a long time, every bit as long as the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord. At one time I had the resources of a major department of state behind me. I must say that I do not think the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord are correct. I do not disagree with the law of this land and their interpretation of the 1972 Act, but the law of the land in other EU member states is different. There is nothing that can be said to be against the treaty of Rome, or any subsequent amendments, that can prevent this country harmonising its laws with those of other countries.
	I refer specifically to the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. It is true that that court preceded the Federal Republic of Germany's accession to the treaty of Rome. That is a fact. Nevertheless, it was open to the German Parliaments at the time of accession to the treaty of Rome to rule that there was an inherent conflict between the continuation of the Federal Constitutional Court, the principles of the treaty of Rome and the creation of the International Court of Justice. They did not do so. I could cite other member states, which have constitutional courts. By far the pre-eminent, and the one that is most respected in the European Union, is the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, so I will confine my arguments entirely to that existing court.
	I ask the Minister to confirm that there is already a case before the German Constitutional Court relating to the treaty of Lisbon. A Member of Parliament, Peter Gauweiler of the Christian Social Union, part of the governing coalition, moved that the treaty of Lisbon weakened democracy in European politics, especially national parliaments' right to a say, and brought a case before the Constitutional Court. As I understand it, although I am not sure because I found it difficult to trace, the case is still before that Constitutional Court. Technically speaking, it may delay German ratification of the treaty of Lisbon. It is open to the Federal German President, Horst Kohler, to sign off the treaty if it is ratified by the German Parliament, despite not yet having had a judgment from the Constitutional Court, but it would be unusual to do so.
	A similar case was made before the German Constitutional Court at the time of the ratification of the European Union constitution. It was widely felt that it would not be wise, or necessarily accepted by the then German President, for the German Parliament to ratify while that case lay before the Constitutional Court. In the event, because of the French and Dutch votes on the referendum, it was put to one side and no final decision was taken. I also understand that the president of the German Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, has called the provisions in the Lisbon treaty intended to strengthen the role of national Parliaments "ineffective" and "impractical". He has therefore given, I presume, an indication that there is at least a case to be considered before the German Constitutional Court.
	The absolute nature of the way the noble Lord presented his case, in terms of the European Union as a whole, is not correct. I accept that the way the British Parliament considered the 1972 treaty excludes it. Therefore, it can be changed only by an Act of Parliament.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Lord aware that he is describing litigation under the German written constitution, which challenges aspects of the treaty of Lisbon? As he rightly says, it is not the first time that challenges of that kind have arisen in the German constitutional court. The same applies, for example, in the Irish Supreme Court where there have been similar challenges. In this country, there have been attempts also in litigation before our courts to challenge, for example, the treaty of Maastricht, the treaty of Nice and others. Is the noble Lord aware that all those attempts, which in the main have been unsuccessful, have been subject to the paramount law of the European Union, as interpreted and applied by the supreme constitutional court of the European Union—the Luxembourg court? It is beside the point whether there is satellite litigation attempting in Germany or Ireland or here or anywhere else to make challenges. The main point is that the only court that can interpret and apply the supreme law of the European Union is the Court of Justice.

Lord Owen: I do not accept that judgment and I do not believe it is accepted in Germany either. I think that the noble Lord has allowed his personal views to sway him on the actual interpretation of the German constitutional court. As German people understand it, that court can strike out any aspect of any treaty entered into by their Government if it goes against the German constitution. It is put there to uphold the German constitution at all stages. If they interpret it as being against the German constitution, automatically it follows that there is legislation and there would have to be superseding legislation by the Federal Parliament.
	There is a long history of legal issues on this, on which normally I would expect the noble Lord to be well versed—certainly better so than myself. Having talked to many German parliamentarians over quite a long period, I know that they have always viewed this as a potential clash with the European Court of Justice. He is right that so far there has been no clash.
	I should like to pursue my amendment.

Lord Slynn of Hadley: Does the noble Lord accept that, although under German law this was all done, as he says, in a lawful way, it was quite plainly contrary to the law of the European Union and is widely, if not universally, accepted to be in breach of Community law? What happened in Germany, not under the Lisbon treaty, but on a previous occasion, finally led to a settlement of the problem and agreement on how to handle it. German, French and Italian attempts to say that they could do what they like under their own system were recognised generally—I would say universally—as being contrary to European Union law, whatever their position was under domestic law.

Lord Owen: They cannot change European law, but they can challenge the interpretation of European law within the context of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Lord Slynn of Hadley: They can violate European law.

Lord Owen: The noble and learned Lord may be correct that it is a violation, but there is a conflict here. If it was so much of an overt conflict, it would have been much wiser for the Federal Parliament, when it came to accept the treaty of Rome, to have tidied this up and to have made it clear that the German constitutional court was a secondary body. It did not do so and it has inherently a conflict. I should like to move on.

Lord Clinton-Davis: As I understand it, the argument put forward by the noble Lord is that the domestic court can override the European court. That is not possible.

Lord Owen: I know that it is very difficult for noble Lords who have spent quite a lot of their time in the Commission, but I can only assure them that there is a conflict here, which is inherent in the whole of the European Union. There is a juxtaposition of European law and national law. There is a juxtaposition of supranationalism and national government. Some of these have never been cleared up—sometimes quite deliberately. On constitutional issues, in my judgment, the German decision to run the two in parallel was quite deliberate.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does the noble Lord accept that there is only a potential conflict? Can he give examples, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave in respect of the England and Wales law, of where the German constitutional court, the Bundesverfassunggericht, has overridden Community law? As I understand them, the examples he has given are of a case which is now before the German Federal Court and a case which was before the German Federal Court on an earlier treaty, but which was never decided. Can he give any precedence where the Germans have given primacy to their own law, which has not been in violation of Community law?

Lord Owen: I do not claim there to be a precedent. I claim the fact that this potential conflict exists. It is no use the noble Lord shaking his hands. This conflict exists. It is discussed in German politics and it is a factor behind the political decisions taken by federal chancellors over a period of years when faced by amendments of the Rome treaty. They take it into account and they are particularly careful about it. Indeed, it has been made clear. The Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said that in some circumstances she is contemplating making a specific amendment to federal law to take account of this case. I do not want to go on too much on this. I have conceded to any noble Lord the basic fundamentals that our 1972 Act gave complete supremacy to European law.
	I am just saying that there are other member states that have left this issue open, because they know that the nature of the European Union is a continuous negotiation. There are very few absolutes. It is a fact of life, although many people do not like to accept it, that the Luxembourg compromise is still accepted by many member states as existing. There are other purists who argue that the Luxembourg compromise has no legal standing and does not exist. As recently as the treaty of Maastricht, it was necessary for the French Prime Minister to assure the French Assembly that the Luxembourg compromise still existed in terms of the French Government. There are number of other inconsistencies like this. It is not quite as clear cut as the lawyers in this Committee seem to wish to think.
	I should like to draw attention to the basis of Amendment No. 127 and to deal with a small number of points. I agree that subsection (2) of the amendment is otiose.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I think that the noble Lord's interpretation of the nature of the Luxembourg compromise is not relevant to what we are talking about. No one in any member state that I know of or any British Government has ever said that the Luxembourg compromise was part of European Union law. They said that it was part of European Union practise and part of the policy of the Governments who supported it. In any case, the Luxembourg compromise is not a compromise. It is an agreement to disagree between those member states who take one view and those who take another. It really is not relevant to the discussion on this group of amendments, which is about the application of European Union law.

Lord Owen: If the noble Lord would look at the debate in the French Assembly, he will know that it was said that this was no longer possible, because there have been changes in the treaty of Maastricht which meant that it was no longer possible to invoke the Luxembourg compromise. The French Prime Minister came down to the Assembly and gave a very clear, legal interpretation that it had not been changed by the Maastricht treaty and that it was still perfectly legal for the French Government to invoke the Luxembourg compromise. If the noble Lord reads the debate, he may like to come back on the issue. Perhaps, because of my views on these issues, I may have studied it more than he has in this instance.
	Everyone likes to try to believe that the European Union is a tightly constructed and perfectly legal system. It is not. It is, above all, a negotiation between member states, which is why I would urge the Committee to have a look at the new clause. I know that I cannot possibly push this through with the resources that I have available. All I can ask is for the major parties to have a look at it.
	Turning to points of detail, this new clause is drafted to make it clear. It is an educative exercise and subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 127 may not be necessary. The noble Lord is right to say that the essence lies in subsection (3). But behind it lies a very important question. Experience since 1972 has made many of us realise that while we may pass a treaty amendment in the British Parliament, and genuinely believe at the time that we do so that it means one thing, we have seen cases—the classic example is the health and safety directive—where the interpretation of the words of the treaty as understood by both Houses of the UK Parliament were later changed by the European Court of Justice in defiance of what almost everyone believed was the correct interpretation. It is because of that that many of us worry about having no way of challenging the interpretation of the European Court of Justice.
	Whether we like it or not, our law is founded on the basis that the clarification of law by the courts, which goes on in many different ways, relates back to what is said in this House about the law of the land. It may not be perfect but it means that we have some control over the lawyers.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord seems to be under a misapprehension. When judges in this country have to decide what is the intention of legislation, they do not do so on the basis of what is said in this House or the other House—that is neither here nor there. They do it on the basis of interpreting and applying the objects and purpose of the legislation and the language of the legislation read by them as independent courts. It is a mistake to think that anything that is said by Ministers or anyone else about what they think the law is becomes what the law means. Separation of powers means that it is up to the judges to decide that and not up to us as lawmakers. We make the law but the judges interpret and apply it. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

Lord Owen: If the noble Lord is saying that when the justices make the case they do not bear in mind the argumentation that goes on about what is said in both Houses of Parliament, then I am surprised. I do not deny that it is their judgment that makes the law of the land; the words and the interpretation of those words lies in the courts of law of this country. But in regard to the framing of those words and the way that they are put—as the noble Lord knows perfectly well because he has been on the other side in government—parliamentary draftsmen take Ministers through with extreme care what the words are meant to mean. The interpretation and explanation of the words by Ministers is taken very seriously because it is thought to have implications for how a future judge and court will interpret those words. But if what the noble Lord is saying is right, then we might as well give up having debates, go home and let the judges and the lawyers decide everything.
	Fortunately, we have a system in this country where there is an input from the normal, average person about what words mean. This is one reason why I have always thought that you could go to a court and argue that the words mean a certain thing. But, of course, the judges will decide. They will not be bound by Parliament—nor should they be—but, equally, I do not think that they ignore Parliament. This is obviously touching some sensitive nerves but I still come back to the fact that legislation has been passed as treaty amendments and interpreted by the European Court of Justice in a way that we did not consider the words meant at the time.
	I considered whether or not to try to create a constitutional court and I came out against it. We now have the Supreme Court—in name but with hardly any considerable change in judgment—and, having taken on this well-respected name with all the authority it incurs, it would not be unreasonable for the British Parliament to consider, in the light of experience since 1972, whether we need some further safeguarding of the terms of the wording of treaty amendments. If the Supreme Court made a judgment that the interpretation of the European Court of Justice did not correspond with the intention of and the explanation to the British Parliament, there would be a clash. Such a situation would be extremely helpful.
	I return to the question of the double heading of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, an issue that I have raised before in this House and which I still see as a potentially great danger. I wrote to the noble Baroness explaining why the Dutch Government, in March 2004, took the view on the European constitution—this is my own translation—that:
	"The Government also shares the opinion [of parliamentary factions] that the possibility should be kept that in future the President of the Commission can also be the President of the European Council".
	They went on to say:
	"The texts before us leave this possibility open".
	In addition, the Dutch Government's internal legal advice was that Article 21(3) of the then European constitution stipulated that,
	"The President of the European Council may not hold a national mandate",
	and should be read explicitly as only excluding national mandates and not other—read European—mandates. Since then there have been further wording changes introduced, predominantly by the British Government with, I think, the understanding of the Dutch Government. I asked the noble Baroness to see whether she could, through bilateral talks with the Dutch Government, reach some understanding and a common interpretation of this. We have good and friendly relations with the Dutch Government. They are now much more attuned to our view about the nature of the European Union—they are not the federalists they once were—and it is not unreasonable that we should get some explanation from the British Government of the Dutch Government's view. In international law the Dutch Government is extremely well respected, and I would find it much easier to live with the present treaty if I thought that the Dutch Government shared the British Government's interpretation of double heading.
	But double heading is another example of where, despite constant promises by the noble Baroness—I know she has gone into this very carefully—and genuine assurances by the British Government that it is impossible, there are still at this moment campaigners in Brussels who are arguing that this is the next step, and they believe that it is possible to do it within the treaty. That is a fact. You can go on to the blogs of the people who believe it and read the speeches made about it by serious European politicians. Every statement that the noble Baroness makes is helpful to this House, but it is not sufficient. We could still have an interpretation put on the wording in the treaty which is diametrically opposed to the assurances that we have received from the present Government. It may not come in 10 years' time or in 20 years' time, but this challenge will come. For that reason and for many others, one of the ways to deal with it would be through the amendment that I have tabled.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I take it that the noble Lord has sat down and that I am not interrupting him.

Lord Owen: Yes.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I should tell the Committee about a case I was involved in as lately as last Friday in the Court of Appeal. It concerned the prosecution rights of appeal, a matter that we discussed at length in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading in the Criminal Justice Bill 2003. My opponent for the prosecution had raised the issue that the clear words of the statute did not represent the intention of Parliament and I quoted to the judge the words of the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which made absolutely clear what the Government had in mind in passing that legislation. The Lord Justice presiding said to me that that was very interesting, but that there was no obvious difficulty in interpreting the clear words of the statute, that various things had been said in Parliament on all sides and that if the courts started to take notice of what was said in Parliament in that sense, they would be completely confused. I was surprised, because I thought that, on the Pepper v Hart principle, the words of the Attorney-General would be accepted as definitive. But there was no difficulty in interpreting the statute, notwithstanding the arguments of my opponent, who sought to put a gloss on it that the Court of Appeal did not accept.
	My noble friend who explained this was absolutely right that it is with the words of the statute that we are concerned. As early as 1964, long before we entered the European Union, the European Court ruled in the case of Costa that,
	"in contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal system of the member States and which their courts are bound to apply".
	That applies to Germany as to any other country. The court continued:
	"The transfer by the States from their domestic legal systems to the Community legal systems of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail".
	They were clear statements. With those in mind, we entered into the 1972 agreement and passed the European Communities Act 1972, which contained precisely that principle. Shortly afterwards, in 1974, Lord Denning, in the case of Bulmer v Bollinger, said about it:
	"When we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law ... The governing provision is section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 ... The statute is expressed in forthright terms which are absolute and all embracing".
	That was a statement of principle two years after the European Communities Act. The rationale for giving primacy to European law, as decided by the European Court of Justice, was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in his High Court judge days in 1983, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Samex. He said that,
	"the Court has a panoramic view of the Community and its institutions, a detailed knowledge of the treaties and of much subordinate legislation made under them, and an intimate familiarity with the functioning of the Community market which no national judge denied the collective experience of the [European] Court of Justice could hope to achieve ... The interpretation of Community instruments involves very often not the process familiar to common lawyers of laboriously extracting the meaning from words used, but the more creative process of supplying flesh to a spare and loosely constructed skeleton. The choice between alternative submissions may turn not on purely legal considerations, but on a broader view of what the orderly development of the Community requires. These are matters which the [European] Court of Justice is very much better placed to assess and determine than a national court".
	Those are the views of Lord Denning and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. They are clear; the legislation is clear. There is no doubt about what it said in 1972, and it incorporated principles that had been expressed by the European Court years earlier in 1964. I am amazed that in 2008 we are still questioning the primacy of the European Court of Justice.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: The noble Lord has done the Committee a service by citing those important judgments, which all lead in the same direction. I was fascinated particularly by his citing of Lord Denning, because, on any version, he was not the most ardent of Europeans—I think of his "nooks and crannies" speech. He was absolutely clear about the position: that European law is one which member states are bound to accept. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke about the German federal court, but that court made no specific declaration in respect of the primacy of European law, because it is wholly fundamental—there was no need for the German federal court to accept it. The hole in the noble Lord's argument was that, try as he might, he could not cite a single case—he noble Lord, Lord Lester, cited an array of cases—where the German federal court has overridden the European Court; all he could do, at the high watermark of his submission, was say that there is currently a case before the German federal court—I am surprised that that has not been struck down in limine, as it probably would have been in our own jurisdiction. There was a potential case, too, in respect of Maastricht. But the truth is that the Community law is paramount; indeed, our own courts would make references to the European Court of Justice for preliminary rulings in respect of that interpretation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said with due humility that he was not a lawyer; the noble Lord, Lord Owen, followed in that same vein. If the ordinary man were asked to perform a judgment as to whether the views of the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Owen, should be given greater weight than those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, whose background in the European Court we all know and respect, or of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, one wonders where the weight would fall.
	I shall not detain the Committee. These amendments seek to drive a coach and horses through the fundamental principle of European law. Our own jurisdiction and all others have decided on the primacy of European law. To do otherwise and have individual courts in the 27 member states deciding what that law is would be destructive and run wholly counter to the obligations to which we have subjected ourselves.

Viscount Trenchard: I, too, am not a lawyer, but I nevertheless support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Blackwell. I was interested by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who correctly pointed out that if the ordinary man—I think he meant the man on the Clapham omnibus—were asked whether my noble friend Lord Blackwell or the noble Lord, Lord Owen, were likely to be more correct in interpretations of law than the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, he would surely disagree. Nevertheless, the man on the Clapham omnibus would surely think that things ought not to be so, because he would prefer that this Parliament, to which he elected his representative Members, were more important in determining matters of law and criminal justice than a place across the sea in Brussels—where I worked for the whole of 2006.
	One reason why the United Kingdom has been so successful in attracting investment from companies around the world is that its legal and justice system is held in such high regard. It is thought to provide stability, clarity and a good place in which international companies can establish headquarters in this time zone and run their businesses in this region. Therefore, anything that further weakens that clarity, such as the introduction of qualified majority voting— notwithstanding opt-ins and opt-outs—into the area of criminal justice, which further weakens the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to make our own laws, will reduce rather than enhance confidence in our legal system. I worry that that would reduce the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a destination for investment from around the world. Both amendments enhance the attractiveness of the UK rather than the reverse, and I support them.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: We have had an extremely interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Owen. It produced strong reactions from the lawyers present, all of whom talked with great precision, authority and emphasis. None the less, I doubt whether the argument will end with this particular debate. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, has opened something of a Pandora's box. I hope that what is said in this debate will be reported and heard in the Federal Republic of Germany and that people there will hear what the Minister says about this issue and about the position of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany vis-à-vis European union law. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, made an extremely worthwhile contribution.
	In the light of that and of the categorical statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, that EU law must be applicable in every state, I return to one of our earlier debates about the protocol and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Bearing in mind what the noble and learned Lord said about EU law being applicable everywhere and there being no question of tiers of law, I have a question for the Minister. I know that she will say that we debated this before but will she again explain the effectiveness of the protocol in the light of the noble and learned Lord's statement and the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Kingsland? What happens when a judgment is made in a country outside the UK—another country where the Charter of Fundamental Rights has a different effect? How can we avoid law made in other countries having to be applied in that sense and in the light of a judgment made in this country? What the noble and learned Lord has said might be interpreted as strongly supportive of the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Kingsland about the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not want to speak for long, but I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for moving his amendment because we have had clarification from such expert noble Lords that they need congratulation. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, were put to the vote and carried, and the House of Commons agreed to it, we would have to leave the European Union, which from my point of view would be desirable. But I do not believe that people understand how far we have become subject to European law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made it clear that matters European are becoming greater and greater. With every treaty that we pass, their powers become greater. European law becomes greater. Therefore, the position of our courts and of this Parliament is consequently weakened.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, who helped us earlier on in our debate has confirmed that the European institutions and courts are superior, not only to our own courts, but to our own Parliament. This Parliament dare not pass legislation that is against European law. Otherwise, it will have to be struck down. This debate has served to emphasise that point. It will be interesting to hear what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will say. I do not believe that she can say anything different from what has already been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Lester. She will have to confirm exactly how far the independence and sovereignty of this country have been reduced by various treaties since the 1972 Act.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted Lord Denning. I have quoted him previously on this, but I will do it again because it is so good. He made it clear in this House on 31 July 1986, saying:
	"Acts of Parliament and decisions of our courts have been set aside and rendered invalid by decisions of the European Court, which is superior in all matters of EEC law not only to British Courts, including the House of Lords, but also to Parliament where their Acts past, present or future have been, can be and will be declared illegal by an overweening court sitting in a foreign capital".—[Official Report, 31/7/86; cols.1055-1060.]
	Nothing can be clearer than that.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, which nobody else has picked up, but which is central to the debate. He said that we agree not only to laws passed by Parliament; we also agree to treaty law in Parliament. That is why we are discussing the Lisbon treaty. It goes through the Commons, comes to this House, we debate it and eventually agree the various provisions. It is agreed by the Government and that is that. That is the position as the Government understand it. However, the noble Lord was right to say that that is no longer the case. When we agree these laws, they are then liable to be changed by the European Court of Justice without recourse to the agreement of Parliament.
	I have a quick example from when Mr Major was Prime Minister. He was shocked. He went to Maastricht and returned, notoriously saying, "game, set and match". He then found that things were changed not by Parliament, the Commission or the European Parliament, but by the European Court of Justice. He wrote to Mr Santer, the then President of the Commission saying:
	"Dear Jacques,
	My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom".
	The next paragraph is important:
	"The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht".
	The letter continues:
	"However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation that the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
	This is contrary to the clear and express wish of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht".
	The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was quite right to highlight this. Regardless of what Parliament agrees, what the electors elected Parliament for and what the European legislature or the Commission say, the European Court of Justice can, unilaterally, change agreed European arrangements. That is very important. I would be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that in his response, and, indeed, what the Minister will say now.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I know that we are in a hurry for the dinner hour, but I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on his courage in moving this amendment. If a former Foreign Secretary does not today understand the extent of the trap that we are in with our European Union membership, then how can ordinary members of the public? I will spare your Lordships the quote from Section 3 of our European Communities Act 1972 because I have already put it on the record in these proceedings. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that I support his amendment. I fear that the lawyers in this House are absolutely right. I put it to the noble Lord that the only way out is the door.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I shall speak to Amendment No. 159, which is in this group. This has been a fascinating debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Blackwell and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, for having stimulated a most useful occasion, highlighting some of the constitutional aspects of the issue that we face.
	My noble friend Lord Lamont went straight to the point. As a result of what has been said in this debate, the Minister needs to tell us exactly what the protocol's effect is. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, stated very clearly that it is essential to have a court to give final interpretation on European law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, highlighted that the paramount law of the European Union must prevail where it reigns. Where it does, Luxembourg is supreme. My noble friend Lord Blackwell has done us all a great service by highlighting the issue. We profoundly object to the extended jurisdiction that will be given to the European Court of Justice in relation to the police, judicial co-operation and criminal law. I will just say to him that we would like to give further consideration as to whether his amendment is the best way forward in providing a safeguard for our criminal justice system in this area.
	The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was hugely helpful in reflecting on a sort of paramount, panoramic picture of European law; it also particularly came across from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, gave us all a fascinating insight into the internal workings of not only the German federal constitutional court, but proceedings in France.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Lord aware that one of the great pluses of the treaty of Lisbon protocols is that, when we believe that a proposed European measure violates the principle of subsidiarity, our national Parliament will for the first time be able to have access, in ways to be agreed in due course, to the Court of Justice? Therefore, under this treaty and arrangements for it here—the amendment against it has been withdrawn so we cannot debate it—the democratically elected Chamber and this House will together, with the Government, for the first time, be able to challenge a measure for overreach.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Yes, the European Court has the final word—I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord was trying to make. However, I know that we want to move on, so let me just say that the implications of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, are sufficiently far-reaching to require additional examination before we can consider such a potentially profound overhaul of our legal arrangements.
	I have to say to my noble friend Lord Lamont that I am a lawyer—a real one, as many colleagues in the solicitor's profession would say—one of the few practising solicitors in this House. Of course, we always have to consider the arguments put forward from barristers on one side and the other—not, I hasten to add, in a judicial way but in a reflective way—when we are seeking to explain the legal position to our clients. Therefore, as a lawyer, I found that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made a positive contribution on which we would like to reflect.
	However, my Amendment No. 159 calls for an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the impact of any preceding rulings of the European Court of Justice on the United Kingdom. This report was called for by our Constitution Committee. I hope that the Government will give that recommendation the respect that it deserves. In giving evidence to the Constitution Committee, the Government laid out all the ways in which the European Court of Justice's jurisdiction will be expanded by this treaty. The list relates closely to debates we have had in this House on various parts of this treaty. For instance, the charter, the impact of the common foreign and security policy and the increased co-operation on home and judicial affairs are all areas that we have mentioned several times. No doubt we will return to those issues in the future.
	It has been made perfectly clear in the contributions that we have been listening to that much of the opposition to these provisions is driven by uncertainty about the impacts of future ECJ judgments. We simply cannot tell whether their powers will be used to drive the European Union towards eventual federation—is that fear unfounded?—or instead whether the European Union will develop with complete agreement between all the participants about their role within it.
	The Government, in promoting this Bill, have sought to downplay their inability to predict the future. They confidently proclaim that only positive results will come from the increased remit of the European Court of Justice. However, their optimism has failed to convince many.
	This report in Amendment No. 159 will allow the Government to proclaim in future just how wrong we all were in getting so concerned, but it will give Parliament a chance to identify and protect against the undue interference and perceived loss of national independence that may follow. I sense that the general public are very confused about the situation. They are hungry for knowledge about what the EU does and would enjoy the opportunity coming from a debate on that report to learn about the treaty's effects.
	Finally, in this place we have frequently opposed the gold-plating of EU directives—a practice that allows the Government to push unpopular Labour policies through Parliament while refusing responsibility for their impact. As a result, the European Union always bears the blame, in many cases unfairly, for what were Labour additions to a relatively harmless directive. Resentment also builds up because of the perception that it is only the United Kingdom that obeys and pays the full cost. That is a well known myth, but to some extent a very damaging one for those who believe so passionately in Europe.
	The Government have frequently claimed that our concerns and those of the public are unfounded because we do not understand the real situation, but they bear a great deal of the blame for any misunderstanding we might have. They have consistently rejected any of the various reporting or clarifying measures that we have proposed. I can only hope that the arguments of the Constitution Committee will be more successful and that Amendment No. 159 will at least meet with a positive response.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been a long and very interesting debate. I thank all Members of the Committee who have participated, not least those who have tabled amendments in this group. I am conscious that I am all that stands between noble Lords and dinner so I shall try to deal with matters expeditiously, although I intend to cover as much as I can in the full and certain knowledge that this is an issue to which we shall return and continue to debate. Although there have been many contributions, for many noble Lords there has been much food for thought as well, which I sense they will go away and deliberate on. I shall set out as clearly as I can the current position.
	I go back to the beginning and to something that I said at Second Reading. Noble Lords need to have this clearly in their minds when considering the European Court of Justice, a much maligned organisation in many of the contributions. Whether noble Lords like it or not, the European Union is an organisation which needs rules; if you have rules you have to be able to enforce them. The European Court of Justice is the mechanism, put crudely, which enforces the rules. Making it effective as a court is in our interests. It ensures that member states respect the European Union rules—that there is a level playing field, particularly for our businesses in the single market, and protection for our citizens in the rights that they have as members of the European Union. I think it helps to destroy, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, the myth that somehow we implement and other nation states do not—that we do it properly and other member states do not.
	When member states interpret and apply European treaties, the court's role is to ensure that European law is observed. The member states make the law. The European Court of Justice does not make the law; that is not its job. Its job is to interpret the law. We will have fully participated in any law that is made in Europe. The European Union in its competences is able to make laws on subjects only with the approval of the member states. We are not absent players; we are part and parcel of the system. That is really important because it is suggested that somehow the European Court of Justice operates on its own, outside the law and outside the European Council of Ministers, as though it were a body that made law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, on a previous day in Committee, although the court has spoken and interpreted the law, that law is binding. The Council can change the law and practice. It may not do so very often but it can do so; that is not beyond it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does the Minister agree that in the debate to which she referred, she had to confess that the Council of Ministers had never repealed a law and that, for it to do that, unanimity in it would be required? It is unrealistic; it has never happened and it will not happen.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When I said it might not do it very often, I was referring to the future. It might not do it; it might not do it very often; and it has not done it; but that does not mean that it cannot do it. We just have to be clear what we are describing, but it has the power and the capacity to do that. Unanimity is argued for by most noble Lords opposite as being of great import, so I do not see that as a problem; I see that as a positive, if what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, usually says about unanimity is right. The European Court of Justice interprets the law. If the Council, in its wisdom, decided that it did not like that interpretation, it has the power and the capacity to change it. That principle is important. It is the same with this Parliament and national courts.
	When we joined the European Union, the principle of primacy was already there. It is not new; it has not been invented by this treaty or by Maastricht. It is a fundamental part of having a European Union, where you are trying to apply rules that you have made across the Union. That is very important. If you make rules, you need a mechanism to enforce them, but it is not open to a member state to decide that it does not fancy a certain rule one day and, therefore, will ignore it and change it. There is no point in being part of a Union on that basis.
	The Lords Constitution Committee report is often quoted and I shall quote the implications that it has described on this. It states:
	"We conclude that the Lisbon Treatywould make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States' right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union".
	So the ultimate ability to leave the European Union is there. On a previous day in Committee we debated the withdrawal article in the treaty. If noble Lords do not wish to be bound by European law, that is the way to address the matter. As I have said, it is in our interests and it has been a fundamental principle. In 1972, the then Solicitor—General, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe—I hope he will not mind me repeating his words—said:
	"It would make a nonsense of the necessity for Community law to have the same effect in every member State if the United Kingdom, any more than any other member State, could choose by national law to override what it did not like. The principle of Community law having precedence throughout the Community is one that operates for the mutual benefit of all member States".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/72; col. 1317.]
	That is the principle. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains a cornerstone of our constitutional arrangements and is unaffected by ratification of the Lisbon treaty. That, in a nutshell, sets out in our involvement in the European Union.
	Let me try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, raised two examples. The first was whether, if we did not opt in, the UK courts could be influenced by EU law. If we do not opt into a measure in the area of justice and home affairs, it will not form part of our law and, therefore, our courts would not apply it. It is as simple as that. Noble Lords also asked about the European Court of Justice and the charter. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had said and much has been made of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised. I shall try to be as clear and succinct as I can on that.
	The charter sets out existing rights. In our previous discussions, we described the backdrop to the charter. The different articles in the charter come from different places: the European Court of Human Rights, EU law or principles in the operation of EU law, and so forth. I shall not go back through all that. The European Court of Justice can apply the charter only to the same extent that it applies the existing rights. That is a critical point. As the UK protocol makes clear, no court—European Court of Justice or other—can use the charter to extend its jurisdiction to attack UK law. I think that is clear and I hope that noble Lords will reflect on that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Owen, made a very interesting contribution. I am glad to hear he has regained his voice. In speaking to Amendment No. 127, he spoke much about other jurisdictions and particularly about the German constitutional court. I hope the noble Lord will not be surprised that I, too, looked at the German constitutional court and at the French courts—the Cour de Cassation and the Conseil d'�tat, which are the two courts that have had an interest in EU legislation as well.
	Let me back up a lot of what has been said. I will not enter the lawyers' debate that surrounded that, for obvious reasonsI am not a lawyer and I would not pretend to intervene in that way. I recognise that the German Constitutional Court plays a very particular role. What it does is test legislation and government action against the national written constitution. It therefore has a specific focus. That focus is on the national constitution. This is an important backdrop to understanding what the court does. The Court considers that in principle it can decide on the compatibility of Community law with the German constitution but it has never challenged European Community law.
	Let me give two examples quoted by noble Lords. The court questioned the compatibility of EC law with human rights. The European Court of Justice confirmed that it applied human rights as part of EC law. The German court accepted that, as long as EC law was compatible with its own constitutional safeguards, it would respect the primacy of EC law. That casethe Solange casewas a case that was referred to by a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	The other example was the question that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, referred tothe Brunner case. The court made clear it could review the compatibility of EU treaties with the German constitution but found no incompatibility. There is a case before the German Constitutional Court at present. There is nothing new in that. These cases have never resulted in a member state being prevented from ratifying a treaty but I am not going to comment on it because it is before the court and I am advised that I should therefore not make any further comment on that.
	Tomorrow I will be going to Peru with Chancellor Merkel. While I am there I will approach her officials to see if I can get any more information about the German Constitutional Court and the current activities. If I do, I will either write to noble Lords or make sure that we have an opportunity to come back to this.
	The noble Lord, Lord Owen, talked about the Luxembourg compromise. As far as I am concerned, that is well outside the treaty. It is a political determination. It involves, as I understand itI am sure that noble Lords will leap up to correct me if I am wrongthe situation where a member state feels that there is something so fundamental going on that they ask for a pause or stay in the discussions in order to examine that properly. It is a political commitmentit has no legal status, as I understand it. As far as we are concerned, it still exists. It has not been used, as far as I know, for a whilecertainly not by usbut it exists because it is about the politics of nation states working together.
	The noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked about the Dutch position. He is much exercised that I had not yet made contact with the Dutch in order to discuss the double-hatting of the High Representative or the Commission President. I have not done thatlike the noble Lord I have huge respect for the Dutch courts and for courts across the European Unionbecause it is the responsibility of the UK Government, working with its own legal advice, to look at the treaty and to interpret what we believe to be the correct position. When I was in Brussels recently, I discussed this position with officials in order to make sure that the interpretation was right. Actually it is spelled out in the treaty. Noble Lords can go to Article 17 of the European Union Treaty and find references to Article 245 on the functioning of the European Union. To put it in a nutshell, if you are President of the Commission or if you are the High Representative and therefore a Vice-President of the Commission, you are part of the Commission. Article 245 states:
	The members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
	If that were amended, the treaty would need to be amended so it is impossible for the President of the Commission and the High Representative, who is Vice-President of the Commission, and the Council President to double-hat because the two people in the Commission are not allowed to hold any other role. In order to double-hat you need two out of three to be involved but two out of the three cannot do it. I have not used government resources and therefore taxpayers' money to talk to the Dutch about this because in my view the position is crystal clear.
	As I said, we are clear about the primacy of European Union law and we are very clear on the role of Parliament. We believe that this position is exactly the same as it has been before the treaty. It is an important position. If this Parliament decides it does not wish to be part of the European Union that is within its gift. While it is part of the European Union, however, laws that we have participated in making fall to the European Court of Justice to interpret.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about Amendment No. 159. It was interesting that the noble Lord made it clear that he is unhappy about pillar collapse. The preamble to this was his worry about what is now part of the JHA opt-in; essentially, that involves pillar collapse from pillar 3 to pillar 1. I would be very interested to know what the noble Lord would wish to do on behalf of his party about trying to change that if this treaty were not to be ratified. Would he want to keep the Third Pillar as it currently is? I will wait for another occasion to discuss this.
	The noble Lord is quite right to say that this is a conclusion in relation to the report of the Constitution Committee. We are very interested in this. All I can say at presentand I hope the noble Lord will take heart with thisis that consultations with government departments are nearing their conclusion. I hope to be able to respond positively in due course but I am not able to do so today, as I had hoped. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Blackwell: I thank the noble Baroness for her response to the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Thomas. We all learnt a great deal from their interpretation of EU law. It has been a very interesting and revealing debate. As I said earlier, I understand the supremacy of EU law in general, although the way it was described was very helpful.
	My amendment deals in particular with the changes introduced by this treatybringing freedom, security and justice for the first time under the jurisdiction of the court and introducing the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I sought to draw attention in particular to whether those innovations in this treaty brought the supremacy of European law to cover justice and criminal law and policing in the UK. I think the answer was a resounding Yes, it does. That is a very interesting answer which will bear much thought. As my noble friend Lord Hunt suggested, I and others will want to take this away and consider the best way of proceeding with this argument. Given the lateness of the hour for dinner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 116 to119 not moved.]

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 9.18 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Rights of Way: Maps

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the programme for updating the definitive maps of rights of way and in particular the 25-year time limit on making claims for changes.
	My Lords, this Question is about the rights of way provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and Section 53 in particular. It introduces a 25-year cut-off date for historic claims which runs from 1 January 2001 and expires on 1 January 2026. It means that rights of way that existed before 1949 that are not recorded on the definitive map will be extinguished. This refers to footpaths and bridleways and it can also refer to higher rights on recorded footpaths. There are two broad areas of concern on this. One relates to the rural, mainly recreational rights of way and the other relates to the very different urban rights of way, and the two obviously run together.
	I should declare an interest as a member of the British Mountaineering Council and of its access and conservation working group. I am also a member of the Open Spaces Society and, more generally, I am a walker and cyclist. I have also been known to sit on a horse but that does not happen very often. I particularly want to thank the Ramblers' Association, Sue Hogg, chair of the National Federation of Bridleway Associations, Alan Ibbotson, president of the Institute of Public Rights of Way Management, or IPROW, and my colleague Trevor Jones, who is a councillor in Dorchester and a member of Dorset County Council. I also thank some of the Dorset County Council staff for helping to research this subject. It is an important matter and, in the three or four months since I first tabled this Question, it has become very much more topical.
	Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act was an attempt to bring certainty to the definitive map and, in many ways, it was a sop to landowners, who were up in arms about the provisions of the Act that referred to accessthe so-called right to roam. As a result of the discussions, some further concessions were made to ramblers, users of bridleways and so on, with a possible five-year extension to 2031. In particular, the Discovering Lost Ways project was introduced, in which it was hoped that there would be a mechanism for discovering rights of way which had been lost or not recorded. There were also promises of funding to volunteer groups to assist in the process.
	Where are we now? Discovering Lost Ways has lost its way and is being closed down. Some 4.5 million spent in two countiesCheshire and Shropshirehave resulted in a grand total of no additions to the definitive map. Therefore, it has been a complete flop. It was based on library research, and local volunteers were not really involved. It was a case of looking at ancient maps and documents, inclosure awards, tithe maps and even the land surveys which Lloyd George instituted for his land tax in 1910. However, the promises of funding and support for volunteer groups never really came to fruition, including a promise of 2 million per annum. On 23 July 2001 the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in a Written Answer to me said, among other things:
	The agency invited consultants to advise on the most effective way of involving voluntary groups in research on unrecorded rights of way ... The contract was offered on 12 July and, if accepted, we expect work to begin in August with a view to having a scheme to support voluntary work in place by spring 2002.[Official Report, 23/7/01; col. WA 190-91.]
	Unfortunately, so far as I can see, that never happened. It certainly did not produce anything on the ground.
	In the mean time, the existing system for claims grinds on. There are long backlogs and, in 2005, a Countryside Agency report said that the backlog was increasing. It is slow and cumbersome, very legalistic and lawyers earn lots of money. I quote from a May 2006 document from the South Pennine Packhorse Trails Trust on the Discovering Lost Ways project:
	The main obstacle to reinstating the historical network is the definitive map process itself: it is long-winded, increasingly debased, increasingly partial, increasingly costly, and often leaves members of the public disillusioned, depressed, and feeling that their efforts have been wasted and that they themselves have been cheated. Today few sensible people are prepared to research and submit dmmo
	definitive map modification order
	applications, and even fewer are prepared to attend public inquiries. And the longer the time taken to complete the definitive record, the more difficult the task becomes, as communities increasingly become severed from their roots.
	The question is: is the present system broken? A lot of people say that it is. Organisations such as the Ramblers' Association and IPROW say no; they say that funding is the key. It will be interesting to know the Government's view on this. Can the process of definitive map modification orders be simplified? Can the process, procedure and paperwork be reduced and simplified? Can common sense be introduced into the process? At the moment, it is extremely legalistic, and common sense often does not seem to prevail at all. One thing on which I think everyone agrees is that maintaining the definitive map is essential; it is at the core of the whole system.
	Then there are rights of way improvement plans, most of which have now been completed, the deadline having been, I think, last November. Alan Ibbotson, president of IPROW, suggested that they are hanging there. The improvement plans may be there but in very many cases the resources are not there to implement them or to do very much about them.
	I now want to talk about urban rights of way. I was originally provoked into tabling this Question for Short Debate by my colleague Trevor Jones in Dorchester, Dorset. He is a member of the town council and I shall quote from a letter that he wrote to me last July:
	About two years ago, Dorchester Town Council learned that unless they were 'formerly recorded as Rights of Way by 2026', all our innumerable walkways and back alleys would cease to be protected for public use after that date.
	He is referring to paths in urban areas. He continued:
	Accordingly, they agreed with County Council staff that they would make a start on the procedures
	that is, for recording them on the definitive map. He went on:
	After not many months, they chucked the towel in because the procedures are simply a nightmare.
	The town council found that they were just too costly and it could not continue with them.
	How many urban rights of way exist? Very often they are unrecorded but they are used, not lost. No one knows how many there are but they total many thousands, and there may well be hundreds of thousands in the country. There are a vast number of active paths which are often well used but rarely on the map. There is a proliferation of local names for them, which shows how local but important they are. They include alleys, ginnels, snickets, drongs, vennels, twittens, twitchels or lonnies, and no doubt there are many more. I was brought up in the land of the snicket and I now live in the land of the ginnel. My noble friend Lord Shutt would, if noble Lords wished, produce a map that he has researched showing the boundary in the Pennines between the land of snickets and the land of ginnels. They are all important and are all used, but if they are no longer rights of way, there is a real chance that the people who own the land will block them.
	Ipswich apparently has only four recorded rights of way and no definitive map. I have no idea what they call them in Ipswich but they must be there and they must be important.
	It has been suggested that the exception provisions in Section 54 of the CROW Act could be used to define urban paths in this way as an exception to Section 53 and so avoid ending their status as rights of way in 2026. Do the Government intend to make regulations under Section 54? Do they think that this is a way forward or is more fundamental legislative change needed?
	People see a major crisis looming. That crisis is 17 years away but the process is slow. What is happening now? Natural England has decided not to go ahead with the Discovering Lost Ways project because it is not working. It made a report to its board in February, which suggested that there should be a fundamental review. At a meeting in March, it produced a very interesting report called Discovering Lost Ways, covering the outcome of the review and recommendations on the way forward. I understand that it has been forwarded to the Government. I have concentrated on setting out the problems but I hope that the Minister will concentrate on some of the possible solutions and indicate the Government's thinking in response to this interesting report from Natural England.
	I understand that it has been proposed that a stakeholder working group should be set up. I thought that perhaps it was intended to create some more fences but apparently that is not the case; it is a working group of all the people involved in this matter. Have the Government decided what the terms of reference should be? Will the process be transparent? Will they get an agreed agenda with all the different groups from landowners through to ramblers and so on? Do they agree that the review needs to encompass all aspects of the rights of way system or will it simply replace Discovering Lost Ways? Do they agree that the membership of the stakeholder working group must reflect all the main user groups? Finally, do they believe that the answer is to repeal and abolish Section 53 and not have this sword of Damocles hanging over the whole process? If not, what is the answer?
	When we werea long time ago it seemsin your Lordships' House discussing the Rights of Way Bill going through the House, there were concerns that Section 53 would be a problem when it came up and that has proved to be the case. The answer that the Government came up withDiscovering Lost Ways and the funding of voluntary groupshas not happened or has not worked and we need something else. I very much look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Addington: My Lords, the House owes my noble friend a certain debt of gratitude for bringing this subject forward, despite the fact that, this late at night and after having enjoyed so much of the European Union debate, some of us may not think so. It is a very important issue that touches on many areas of government policy, including obesity, the state of the nation's health, and so on. There is a sort of mantra that goes round: let us encourage more sport, more recreation. Then you go down and realise which groups are which and which ones are more appropriate.
	There is no more appropriate form of mass exercise than pleasant or useful walking. If you can make it a pleasant walk to the shops, people will walk to the shops, provided that the distance is reasonable and they are not going for a huge weekly shop. If you have to clamber into a car and drive to the shops, people are not going to take the exercise. They will increase the number of journeys and make it more unpleasant for people who are walking round the streets. As my noble friend pointed out, if you encourage those urban walkways, many of which are unofficial, you will help many other government directives and areas of activity that we want to encourage.
	I always feel slightly sorry for Ministers in this House, because they are answering for the whole of the Government. Thus, they always have a slight pressure on them to have a better idea of what other parts of the Government are doing. Has the noble Lord had any communication about this from other parts of Government? Shall we give them guidance on how to help people to find out what areas where you can walk are available? Either one of the two noble Lords on the Front Bench could have this question quite fairly put to them. What is the cross-reference between the two? How does it work? The historic and ancient walkways, especially in and around towns, allow greater access to those walkways outside which are probably the most pleasant. Unless you establish a walkway system that allows you to get on and off it on foot, you cannot achieve what you intend. I now live in Berkshire, which has the great walk of the Ridgeway running through it. One of the great disappointments with that is that people drive to get on to it. More often, they should be encouraged to walk on to it. That is a part of the country which is not that badly served by walkways.
	You should encourage people to find out what is there and the cutways through it. Whenever I go for a walk, I try to stay on the paths, but occasionally I will go off them on to the short tracksoften a farm trackthat link up two paths. I think everybody does it. Are we going to encourage their usage? Are we going to try to get some feel of what is going on? What is seen to be the right amount of support in identifying pathways, historic or otherwise? It is fair enough to extend this downeven to the creation of one or two new onesto make sure older paths are used. What is being done here?
	We can go round this a thousand times, but unless the Government take on some real commitment here to encourage this usage, much of what was done on the CROW BillI remember the very late night sittings as if it were yesterday

Lord Greaves: Overnight.

Lord Addington: And overnight indeed. That is rather reminiscent of this current Bill. The same feeling of hopelessness comes in at about the day five or six of the process in any Bill.
	When we were trying to establish what the limitations were, the Government put in things like the Discovering Lost Ways project and, at that time, they effectively said it was important, that something should be done and that there should be some area of activity. What are we going to do to enhance this? Are we trying to drive on? Are we trying to find out what goes on? I do not think there has been any dispute about the fact that we should be encouraging recreational walking and walking as a form of local transport at dozens of different levels. The Government can probably help themselves in many other fields if they at least say what they are going to do here; what other departments are encouraging them is the correct thing. We are at least entitled to know that. If the Government have decided it is all too difficult, at least we should know. If we do not, we are going to carry on doing this again and again.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling this question and bringing about an interesting debate, because it brings to our notice a good idea that has got bogged down. I have to declare an interest. We are farmers and in horticulture and we own and occupy land with rights of way. None are known to be lost ways, but we have been talking to Lincolnshire County Council about diverting a path to provide both a more practical field shape and a more engaging walk.
	My wife is a Lincolnshire county councillor and I have used her as a researcher. I have had the opportunity to talk to Chris Miller who is the principal rights of way and access officer on Lincolnshire County Council. He gave me some interesting information on how a typical county council is dealing with these things. Lincolnshire has a total of 159 cases, of which 138 are from direct applications from the public. Others were initiated by the county council following the discovery of evidence by the authority. The oldest of these cases date back to 1983. In 2007-08, the authority completed just 23 cases but received 10 new claims. The backlog is clearing only slowly. The process is slow and not working particularly well.
	Timescales for resolution vary depending on whether objections are received. As a rough estimate, it takes about a year for a case to be resolved. However, the authority has some old cases that have not significantly progressed for a number of years. It receives approximately 50 requests a year. Many people who make a request are put off by the fee or their request does not meet the statutory or local criteria for acceptance.
	The briefing, for which I am grateful to Chris Miller, paints a picture of a process that is not working well. That is not because the department is badly funded. Obviously, all local authority departments are finding things tight when they want to be generous with funds, but this department is relatively well funded. Lincolnshire is a rural county and has probably more than its fair share of rural footpaths.
	The picture that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has presented to us shows that the task is complex and burdensome. That is not likely to be resolved in the absence of primary legislation to simplify the process. However, knowing the Government's position on legislative timetables, I think that it is unlikely that we will see any such legislation. I would be interested to know what the Minister proposes to do in the interim to make the project much less bureaucratic. Amanda Earnshaw, a project manager for the Discovering Lost Ways scheme, which was set up by Natural England, said:
	What should have been a sensible process has got itself mired in bureaucracy and as yet we haven't got any more rights of way on the map.
	The project found that even a systematic research approach could not remove the requirement for further detailed research into cases by the highway authority and for a public inquiry to be held whenever the recording of such a right was opposed. The costs of advertising are a factor, too. Local newspapers are not cheap places in which to advertise. The Government may need to find other ways of making details available to the public. As we know, Natural England has decided, given the budget pressures that it faces, that further funding cannot be justified after the 4.5 million that it has invested so far.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the stakeholder working group. The Government have said that they will not bring Section 53 into effect until they hear the outcome of the working group, so it would be useful to know from the Minister when he expects the group to report back to him.
	It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talk about urban paths, because in many ways these are more used than rural paths. Rural paths are used largely, although not exclusively, for recreation purposes, but urban paths, too, are important in local communities. Often, what started with people nipping through a gap in the hedge has become a well tracked alleyway through to the shops and people have become used to it. The establishment of rights of way by precedent means that new paths are being created all the time in urban environments.
	I hope that the Minister will present us with some positive solutions to what I see as a difficult problem. No one can deny the delight of walking in the British countryside, which, at present, looks absolutely magnificent. Whether it is the Cumbrian hills or the Lincolnshire fens, we are all privileged to be able to enjoy it. I hope that the Minister will say that he supports the continuing development and maintenance of the definitive map. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must approach that in a practical way.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on bringing forward the debate. I do not have many interests to declare, but in the past couple of weeks I have walked both in the Cotswolds and in the Lake District, so that is where I am coming from.
	Let me give the House a few facts. I am not criticising the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but anyone listening to him would think that we are closing down walking in the countryside. It is worth putting on record that in England there are 94,000 miles of footpaths, 20,000 miles of bridleways, 38,500 miles of restricted byways and 2,500 miles of byways open to all traffic. A 1 per cent reduction in the sedentary population in the UK could provide almost a 500 million saving in averted healthcare costs. That is a big cost. Perhaps we ought to be doing the debate standing up rather than sitting down. That is where we are coming fromthere is a great benefit to walking and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says, the countryside looks quite magnificent at present.
	I have some comments but I certainly have not got all the answers. The Government's position has been clearly set out in answer to Questions in both this House and the other. The latest that I have in my notes is a fairly substantial Answer in the other place from 8 May.
	We recognise the importance and value of the rights of way network. The health and quality-of-life benefits of walking, cycling and horse riding are well known. I could give the House the figures on the substantial percentage of the population who visit the countryside. There are enormous economic as well as health benefits, so the gains are not only recreational.
	The rights of way provide important social and economic benefits. They can be functional journeys as well. But they are not all necessarily in the countryside. My former constituency was about 16 square miles in a very urban part of Birmingham, but it was littered with rights of way. They are usually not very well lit, so people are always campaigning for reassurance from the council that they are safe to use. That is the issue in urban areas. Traditionally they are away for other forms of traffic, so they can play a significant part in reducing accidents, particularly in urban areas.
	There is a big issue of rights of way being a key ingredient for tackling congestion and reducing dependency on private car use, particularly for short journeys. As the noble Lord said, short-cuts to the shops are very important. But we need to have a rights of way network that is relevant to people's everyday lives, otherwise the rights of way would not be fully utilised and we would lose the benefits. I was not involved in the passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, because I was in another department. The CROW Act introduced the rights of way improvement plans. In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the way network we integrated these with local transport planning.
	The rights of way improvement plans are only a part of the process of developing a rights of way network that serves current and future needs. The 25-year time limit on making claims to changes to the definitive map and statement that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to was introduced to assist this process. The date is there for a reason. But this time limit, introduced by Sections 53 to 56 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, applies only to historic rights of way; that is, those that were in existence before 1949 when the definitive map and statement were introduced by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. These provisions would not prevent the recording of rights of way created after 1949. As the noble Lord said, rights of way are being created regularly.
	The provisions in Sections 53 to 56 have not yet been implemented and we would not seek to implement them without undertaking a full consultation. The 25-year limitthat is the 2026 cut-off pointhad two principal aims. The first was to give landowners and occupiers more certainty about whether public rights of way existed over their land. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to this but not in such technical phrasing. The second was to provide an impetus to getting the definitive map and statement completed within a foreseeable time frame. In looking to provide a network that meets the current and future trend, rights of way that already exist but are unrecorded represent a significant resource on which to draw.
	Finding the legal evidence necessary to add these unrecorded rights of way to the definitive map and statement under the current legislative framework is by no means an easy task. All three noble Lords who have spoken have made that quite clear from practical experience. It requires considerable expertise and resource. It was originally envisaged that the work needed to find and record the rights of way would be undertaken by volunteers with government funding. Natural England's predecessor, the Countryside Agency, was charged with administering the process. The agency examined the possibility of funding volunteers to undertake the work and found that, although there are people out there who are very proficient at this, there are not enough of them in the right places to be able to complete the task by the 2026 deadline.
	The agency and its successor body, Natural England, has also tried a systematic approacha trawl through all the archives by professional researchers. While local authorities have appreciated the benefits that this approach brought, it did not produce rights of way claims that could be processed without significant further investigation by the local authority. Moreover, the establishment and recording of rights of way isand this is a very polite and technical way of putting itan emotive, contentious and increasingly litigious area, and a very exacting standard of legal evidence is required to see through a successful application, hence the delay on all the inquiries, as noble Lords have mentioned. It now therefore seems that, under the current procedures for recording rights of way, many local authorities would not be able to cope with the number of claims that would be generated.
	Research into rights of way has not been attempted on that scale. Much has been learned, howeverand the three counties have been referred to. For example, we now know that many rights of way are not lost; they are actually in daily use but they are simply not recorded. That is quite an important point. We are talking only about rights of way from before 1949. But we also recognise the real risk that, where lost rights of way are discovered, they may now run through dwellings and other properties and be quite incompatible with the current use of the land. That can happen. It is no excuse for not looking for themI make that absolutely clearbut the current mechanism for dealing with these issues may not be adequate because of that point.
	We recognise, too, a risk that systematic research generates a lot of inconclusive evidence that can add uncertainty about what rights existhence nothing has been added to the map, although there are half a dozen claims in one council ready to go forward as well as another hundred or more that could possibly go forward. Because of these potential difficulties, Natural England undertook a review of the work and concluded that it should withdraw from active research and instead try to develop consensus among stakeholders about the best way forward, through an independently chaired stakeholder working group. This is in the process of being set up. It will consist of 15 membersfive from local authorities, five from user groups and five from land managers, with an independent chair. It will be tasked to report at some time in 2009, although I do not have a precise date on that. It will not be a rush job; it will probably be towards the latter part of next year.
	In the light of this, the Government have given an undertaking that the implementation of the relevant Sections 53 to 56 of the CROW Act, which are the provisions that would extinguish any historic rights of way not shown on the definitive map and statement by 2026, will not be pursued at least until the stakeholder group proposed by Natural England has reported its conclusions. So there is no prospect of any jumping the gun. We are not at this stage committing to any further legislative reform, which includes any changes to Sections 53 to 56 of the Act. We value the rights of way network and recognise the need to ensure that it is protected and enhanced.
	I have a small tag here on my speaking note which I call tick-tock. The natural question that would be asked about this by those outside is whether we are genuine about the stakeholder group. We will not move on the issue until we get the results from the stakeholder group. I understand that the three parties that will come together in the stakeholder group are very happy with the process and the way forward. There is a degree of consensus that, if the present system does not work, we will find another way to do it. But the clock is ticking on the 25-year limit, as was implied in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is now less than 20 years away and, as the legislation stands, the cut-off date prescribed by Section 56 is 1 January 2026. That can be extended by regulations, but only for the five-year limit up to 1 January 2031. Therefore, unless the provisions are amended by further primary legislation, the clock will continue to tick. However, the provisions that introduce the cut-off date are yet to be implemented and, as I have said, we have undertaken not to pursue implementation until there is a proposed stakeholder group.
	There is a degree of uncertainty, but we still have a long way to go. The fact is that the stakeholder group will have the parties who are central to making these decisions as members. I know the groups, but not the individuals, and they know that the clock is ticking. In a way, that may give them an incentive to get cracking. If the cut-off has to be extended, an order that runs for five years would make up for the delay that we have just suffered in the last period, which is a bit more than five years. However, primary legislation would be required to knock that out.
	As the years tick by, this issue will have to be addressed and the next stopping-off point to get it checked over is when the stakeholder group reports. It will be fully transparent and disclosedthere is no reason for it not to beand then properly consulted. As I have said, there would have to be a full consultation anyway before the Government moved on Sections 53 to 56, even if they were minded to implement or use regulations.
	This thing is not going away. The chances areand I am thinking aloud now, because of the issue of legislationthat, if the stakeholder group reports, let us say, at some time next year with a decision on how to proceed on consulting on Sections 53 to 56, within a couple of years we are going to get a solution to the way forward. That may or may not require primary legislation, but we need a certain date in the first place for land managers and landholdersand developers, in that caseto get some certainty. A bit of uncertainty is being introduced at present, so it is important to clear that up. I hope that it can be done with the good will borne out by the fact that there is a good consensus on the stakeholder group.
	This is a sad state of affairs, in a way, as it has not worked out as intended. Yet as I have said elsewhereand as we were once informed by the management group at Templeton College before we became Ministersit is never too late to avoid making a bad decision. In this case, the decision to start the research was there but enough evidence came out of it to say, Hang on a minute, this is not the way forward. We have to find another way.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he comment on the Section 54 exceptions and whether the Government might make regulations under them to deal with urban ones?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, because I have spoken about Sections 53 to 56, which are taken as a group. We have no intention on moving on any of them until after having that stakeholder group.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eighteen minutes past nine.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.57 to 9.18 pm.]

European Union (Amendment) Bill

House again in Committee.

Lord Waddington: moved Amendment No. 121:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause
	Supremacy of United Kingdom Parliament
	Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament to make or unmake laws or regulations applicable in the United Kingdom.

Lord Waddington: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Blackwell, it might be appropriate for me to talk to my Amendment No. 130A, which is the last in this group. I am very disturbed because my colleague in this matter, if I may so call him, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, is not yet present, but he will be here shortly. I should say now that he has already given me some very wise advice. My advice is that noble Lords should pay a lot more attention to what he says than to what falls from my lips if there is any difference between us.
	I start with the well known case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, which is relevant to this matter. In that case, Lord Justice Laws referred to the European Communities Act 1972 as a constitutional statute, but that does not mean that it cannot be repealed or disapplied in part by clear words in a later Act. With the 1972 Act, there was, in the words of Lord Bridge of Harwich in the Factortame case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a voluntary surrender of sovereignty, but what has been given can be taken away, and that was made clear in another case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, McCarthys Ltd v Smith. I quote from Lord Denning:
	If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty
	that is, the treaty of the European Union
	or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it, and says so in express terms, then I should have thought it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament.
	There are other passages in the Thoburn judgment which make one wonder whether this will always be the view of our courts. It therefore seems that if we do not soon assert that our Parliament can still pass laws inconsistent with our obligations under the treatiesand if we do not, in fact, pass any such lawswe will sooner or later lose the right to do so. It is a matter of great regret.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Is the problem not that we have incorporated European law into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, and the only way to go against it is to repeal the 1972 Act which did that? It is not a question of looking into the future as to what further matters may come up, and Parliament taking a different view. We would have to go back to the 1972 Act and repeal it, taking it out of domestic law.

Lord Waddington: I am following the exact words used by Lord Denning, who said:
	If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it, and says so in express terms, then I should have thought it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament.
	In other words, if we were to state in absolutely explicit terms that it was our intention to legislate, knowing full well that it was inconsistent with the 1972 Act, the courts would accept that and would not attempt to say that the Act of Parliament in question was of no effect. I am sure that is exactly what Lord Denning said. There is no doubt; I have quoted the words twice.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect, Lord Denning may have said that and, obviously, a future, inconsistent, Act of Parliament could be passed, but it would be of no effect unless, at the same time, there was an explicit repeal of the 1972 Act.

Lord Waddington: I do not accept that for one moment. It is absolutely plain at the present time, although I would add the caveat that things could quickly change because certain passages in a recent judgment by Lord Justice Laws suggest that things are changing and that the time will come when the courts will say that the European Communities Act 1972 has a special character and is an Act of such constitutional significance that nothing can be done about it. I am talking about the law as it is now. If the law now is the law as stated by Lord Denning, I am right and, with the greatest respect, the noble Lord is wrong.
	I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to intervene and I shall be delighted to give way to him. I am very conscious of the fact that I was rather discourteous to him the other night, which I put down to overexcitement, deafness and the knowledge that the House wished to come to a conclusion. But that makes me doubly glad to give way to him now.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful. I am tempted to quote from A Midsummer Night's Dream and say that the noble Lord is as wise as he beautiful. But I shall not do that, because it might be considered improper.
	Whatever Lord Denning said in this House as a parliamentarian is not the law. The law is what is stated in the Appellate Committee by the Law Lords. As I attempted to say briefly, it is absolutely clear beyond argument, not only in Lord Denning's Court of Appeal in the case of McCarthys v Wendy Smith, he made the supremacy of European law absolutely plain, but he also set aside in that case the part of the Equal Pay Act that conflicted with an equality directive, and explained why. In Factortame, Lord Bridge for a unanimous House of Lords displaced the discriminatory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and explained why. In the EOC case, another Appellate Committee displaced the provisions of an old employment protection Act as being inconsistent.
	In all those cases, they explained the relationship, not in this House as parliamentarians, but as our final court. All that they said echoed similar judgments by the European Court of Justice. If Lord Denning in advanced years began to say political things here, they are not of the same judicial weight as when he acted as a judge. When he acted as a judge in the Court of Appeal, he made it absolutely clear. I suggest that one should focus on what he and the House of Lords said as a court, and the European Court of Justice. All of them said exactly the same thing. With respect, it is hopeless to suggest that there is any lack of clarity.
	The position is that our sovereign Parliament has agreed, exercising its sovereignty, that so long as we remain members of the European Community/Union where European Community law reigns, in the sense that it applies in a particular area, any inconsistency in legislation or judicial decision or administrative action must give way. It is also clear that no member state can reply on its own constitutional order as an excuse for doing anything inconsistent with the paramount law of the European Community, now the European Union. Perhaps I may say that all that is now in any law school regarded as absolutely straightforward for any law student.

Lord Waddington: If Lord Denning is looking down on us he would be very displeased to hear that his utterances were political, because they were nothing of the sort. What the noble Lord is saying is based on his belief that the European Communities Act has already acquired a special status and is quite unlike any other Act of Parliament except, perhaps, the Bill of Rights. I do not accept that. If one takes the view that what one Parliament can do another can undo, and that an Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament, I am right and the noble Lord is wrong. But let me continue with what I have got to say.
	It is a matter of enormous regret that with every day that passes it looks less and less likely that this House will do its duty and insist on the Members of the other place honouring the promises they all made to their constituents that there would be a referendum on the matters originally in the constitutional treaty and now in the treaty of Lisbon. If people are going to break their promises to their constituentsand are encouraged to do so by Members of this Housethere should be some kind of safety valve to deal with the situation which will then arise.
	If there is no referendum, it is not altogether unlikely that after the next general election there will be returned to Parliament a party with a clear mandate to renegotiate parts of this treaty, and that in office there will be a Government in a position to secure the passage through Parliament of legislation which reflects the people's wisheswhich they have not so far been allowed to express and which Members of this House seem determined to prevent them expressingbut which may be inconsistent with the 1972 Act and our treaty obligations.
	The consequence of that would not be our departure from the EU but a renegotiation, with the other members probably recognising that for trade reasons aloneBritain being a far more valuable trading partner for them than Europe is for usit would be to their advantage to try to meet Britain's concerns and keep it within the fold. We would be in a very powerful negotiating position if by then we had secured the passage through Parliament of legislation removing from British law the obligation of which we and the British people believe we should be free. We would be in a much weaker negotiating position if no such legislation had been passed by our Parliament; and we would be in a still weaker position if legislation had been passed which our courts had found of no effect.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Perhaps the noble Lord can answer a question which I have asked in another context: why did the Governments of which he was a Member, who negotiated and ratified treaties of much greater import than this one, not introduce a clause of this kind into the legislation when they were passing it through Parliament if he feels it was so important? Secondly, now that the Lisbon treaty will contain a provision for withdrawal, would it not be dishonest and dishonourable for a Government to legislate unilaterally when there was a perfectly good procedure in the treaty under which they could get into the position the noble Lord wishes by notifying their partners that they wished to withdraw from their legal obligations and cease to be a member of the European Union? If you were not prepared to do that, then you really would be in a weak negotiating position.

Lord Waddington: I have three points to make. First, during all the great debates upon Maastricht I was not a Member of the Government. If I had been, I might have given the Government of the day some very good advice; it would be the same as the advice that I give to this Government. There are times when it is a very good thing to get this out of the system and to allow people to let off steam. If we had had a referendum on Maastricht it would have avoided many of the problems which followed thereafter. But it is quite ridiculous to compare the situation over Maastricht with the situation today. I cannot remember the Conservative Government promising the people a referendum and then ratting on it. The point here is that this Government promised a referendum and are ratting on that obligation.
	That is the answer to the points made by the noble Lord except to say that I am not advocating now leaving the European Union. I am merely stating certain things which it would be wise to do to make sure that if we were to enter into renegotiations we would be in a much stronger position than if we had not been able to legislate to undo that which has been done in this treaty without the consent of the British people and with the collusion of Members such as the noble Lord who has just spoken.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I objected to the decision to have a referendum in 2004. I have objected to every single decision to have a referendum. I am afraid that I am not prepared to sit and be told that I have reneged on anything.

Lord Waddington: The noble Lord is entirely missing the point. I am not saying that a person is not entitled to take the view that a referendum is a bad instrument for dealing with circumstances such as that; I am saying that we should all agree that Governments, when they promise referendums, should honour their promises. That is the issue before this Committee. I am rather ashamed by people's denial that that plain obligation should be carried out.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: That does not seem to be the issue that arises in the amendment, which appears to envisage a process of renegotiation. How does the noble Lord see that going? I presume that the renegotiation would be of some of the terms of the treaty of Maastricht, to which he and his friends have objected. At the first European Council, the new British Prime Minister would say, The chair should please get out, because we don't agree that there should be a permanent chair. It would be helpful, therefore, if we looked back in the alphabet and decided who, on the rotation of the chairs, should now be in the chair of this European Council. Let us suppose that the others do not agree. One of the distinguishing marks of a treaty renegotiation is that, although anybody can ask for one, it takes unanimity to open it. Does the noble Lord think that all the other members of the European Union, having ratified the treatypresumably because they think that it contains some quite good thingswould agree that the treaty should be reopened because the British Prime Minister, in the situation described, asked for it?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But before

Lord Waddington: I do not think that the noble Lord behind me can intervene on an intervention by the noble Lord opposite. Let me deal with one load of trouble at a time.
	I have an awful feeling that this debate will go on a lot longer than I ever intended. It was not me who opened up all the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; he raised the matters and I responded to them. I have an awful feeling that if I am too generous in my reply to him, I will be very unpopular, so let us get on with the proposition that I am advancing, which is simply this: if there is no referendum, it makes it that much more likely that there will be returned to Parliament a party with a clear mandate to renegotiate parts of the treaty, and that in office there will be a Government in a position to secure the passage through Parliament of legislation which reflects the people's wishes. If a party had a clear mandate to renegotiate, it would be pretty fruitless to enter a renegotiation unless we had put down a few markers and said, This is the part of the treaty to which we objected. This is the part of the treaty which was never put to the people. We have passed legislation in the English Parliament making sure that the social chapter is to be repealed. The consequence of that process might be success or failure, but that is entirely irrelevant so far as the amendment is concerned. Quite simply, this amendment, which I would have moved in far shorter terms had I not been so generous to all those who have intervened, is designed to make sure that, in the circumstances that I have mentioned, our courts would accept the right of Parliament to legislate even when the legislation was in conflict with the 1972 Act. They certainly would not treat the legislation as being other than of no effect if there had not been a clear statement of the intention of Parliament that such legislation should override the 1972 Act. That is the simple purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 122, as an amendment to Amendment No. 121, not moved.]

Lord Neill of Bladen: When I first came to this Chamber, experts such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, on my left were not present. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, was the first in, then the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay. Most of your Lordships are probably too young to remember the cricket match that was played at Lord's every yearit is now rather embarrassing to recall itcalled Gentlemen v Players. I have no doubt that I will be hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about how many discriminatory observations I have made by even referring to the title. It was an almost unbelievable class system. The gentlemen came down the central staircase at Lord's from the Long Room on to the cricket pitch when they came out to bat. The players came out of a sort of tunnel in a remote ignominious part. To crown it all, on the order of play where the names were, gentlemen had their initials and occasionally an hon and players had no initials.
	I am not pressing this too hard: I am simply saying that there are gentlemen, if you take my meaning, and there are players, and a lot of very expert people, so it is rather inhibiting.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Oh!

Lord Neill of Bladen: I have now insulted the noble Baroness. I am sorry. I will keep going. We all greatly admire the noble Baroness and the courtesy that she shows to all speakers.
	I will get on. This Lisbon treaty is a pretty tough area for amateurs to deal with. I should state the extent of my qualifications and then tell noble Lords about my disqualification. I was recently a member of this House's European Select Committee serving under the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and I was on Sub-Committee E. I was one of those who considered the proposed constitutional treaty, and we spent a lot of time on that. But I was not a member of any committee that considered the current Bill. In Sub-Committee E we had a succession of extremely able Law Lords. I hope that it will not be a feature of the move across the road to the Supreme Court that we lose for ever that wisdom. If so, that is a lamentable consequence. I will not mention any names but they were extraordinarily good.
	I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his team on the job that they did in producing this report, which has flagged up a great many concerns and gives a tremendously good exposition on what is contained in the Lisbon treaty. I was also struck by the numerous occasions when the committee said, quite accurately and sensibly, that we would have to wait to see how it played out and that it was not possible to forecast how it would go.
	I should mention as a matter of candour to this Committee that I wrote a piece once entitled A Case Study in Judicial Activism, which referred to the European Court of Justice. The House of Lords Select Committee at that time in 1995 was good enough to put some questions to me about it and then wrote a report. I interpose to say that I will hand my notes to the Hansard team. I have references for everything that I am saying but I will not waste time giving the references now.
	The committee considering my evidence, with disciplined brevity, rejected my criticisms of the court's activities without wasting the reader's time by refuting the details of my argument, at paragraph 256. Anyway, I somehow survived that and two years later, I became a Member of this House and in due course was put on the committees that I mentioned. I have no intention of revisiting any of that ground and the controversy concerning the modus operandi of the European Court of Justice, but for practical purposes it is the interpreter of the treaty.
	I am sorry that the Bishops' Benches are empty tonight because I wanted to remind them of a tremendous expression by one of their predecessors, Bishop Benjamin Hoadly, an early 18th-century divine, who held four bishoprics, starting at Bangor and going on to Hereford, Salisbury and finally Winchester. Preaching to the King in 1717, he said:
	Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them.
	He might have been writing about the European Court of Justice as its word is absolute, or is it?
	I would like to refer to the position in three member stateswe had a little about this before, but I did not intervene as I did not want to get involved in that controversy or elongate it any further. However, I would like to deal with the position of Germany, Denmark, and, more recently, Poland, as it is instructive and relevant to what may conceivably happen in this country.
	It is impossible to go into the long story of Germany's position, so I will not attempt it. However, it is important to mention that its constitution was amended in 1992 to make better provision for its EU membership. Specifically, it amended Article 23(1) of the German constitution to permit the transfer of sovereign rights to the Union, but subject to certain basic principles of the constitution, including fundamental rights. That has always been the German constitutional court's positionthat it safeguards the fundamental rights guaranteed by its constitution.
	A case that is generally cited, was mentioned earlier, and is relevant here is the Brunner decision of the federal constitutional court in Germany, decided in October 1993. On a question of trespassing outside the jurisdiction given to the court, the court said,
	if European institutions or agencies were to treat or develop the Union Treaty in a way that was no longer covered by the Treaty in the form that is the basis for the Act of Accession, the resultant legislative instruments would not be legally binding within the sphere of German sovereignty. The German state organs would be prevented for constitutional reasons from applying them in Germany. Accordingly the Federal Constitutional Court will review legal instruments of European institutions and agencies to see whether they remain within the limits of the sovereign rights conferred on them or transgress them.
	That is an interesting statement on a jurisdiction. The court will watch to see whether the activities of the ECJ, or indeed of any other institution within the Community, go beyond the remit of the treaties, because that is the basis on which it acceded. I believe that is the current position in Germany law.
	In Denmark, there was a case of Carlsen against the then Prime Minister, Mr Rasmussen, which was decided in 1999 by its supreme court. It, too, has a written constitution, section 20 of which provides that powers may be delegated to an authority,
	to an extent specified by statute.
	In the context of the Maastricht treaty, the claimants argued that the powers delegated to the Community under the treaty on European Union were too ill defined to satisfy the statute'sthe local constitution'srequirements. They made two points, the first of which was that Article 308which we all remember
	of the EC Treaty gave the Council an open-ended power to legislate.
	Secondly, it said,
	that the ECJ indulged in what the claimants called 'law-making activities'.
	On the criticism of the court, the Danish supreme court said:
	The fact that the ECJ in its interpretation of the Treaty also attaches importance to factors of interpretation other than the wording of the provisions, including the objectives of the Treaty, is not a violation of the assumptions on which the Act of Accession was based, nor is it in itself incompatible with the demand for specification in Section 20(1) of the Constitution. The same applies to the law-making activities of the ECJ within the scope of the Treaty.
	The words,
	within the scope of the Treaty,
	are exactly the German point. So long as they are giving a judgment within the four corners of the treaty, we recognise that and that is it.
	On the wider question of what the position would be if it were later to be alleged in Denmark that an EC institution had exceeded the powers conferred on it by the treaties, the Danish supreme court said that, first, there would have to be a reference to the ECJ to rule on whether it was compatible or not with the constitution. Then it said:
	Danish courts of law can generally base their decision on decisions by the Court of Justice on such questions being within the limits of the surrender of sovereignty.
	However, the courts of law in Denmark cannot be deprived of their right to try questions of whether an EC act of law exceeds the limits or the surrender of sovereignty made by the Act of Accession. The court continued:
	Therefore Danish courts must rule that an E.C. act is inapplicable in Denmark if the extraordinary situation should arise that with the required certainty it can be established that an E.C. act which has been upheld by the European Court of Justice is based on an application of the Treaty which lies beyond the surrender of sovereignty according to the Act of Accession. Similar interpretations apply with regard to Community law rules and legal principles which are based on the practice of the European Court of Justice.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to me at one point in his speech. I was once criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for making a serious point after the dinner hour, which he considered to be an abuse of this House. My difficulty is that having had the previous debate before dinner, I am bound to say that I do not understandit must be my faultthe relevance of most of what is now being said to this amendment, rather than to the previous amendment. I would be grateful to know how this bears on this amendment.

Lord Neill of Bladen: If the noble Lord is patient enough to listen, he will see when we come to consider some of the provisions in the treaty of Lisbon, which may give rise to difficult problems of determining jurisdiction. I have in mind in particular the parts in the treaty where it is said that the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction on this frontier, but over here it has no jurisdiction. That arises in connection with foreign policy.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I might intervene. In the last debate we discussed in great detail the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the issues of the European Court of Justice and its jurisdiction. We were fortunate enough to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, a former European Court of Justice judge. While I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord from continuing in his current vein, it would have been incredibly valuable to have had this speech on the previous amendment. In my role as Leader of the House, I am aware that it is important to try to bring together our debates so that we get the maximum benefit. I shall not respond to a great deal of what the noble Lord is saying because I already have on the previous group. It might be of greater benefit in this debate if we were to focus on the particular aspect of the amendment, which is the role of Parliament and the issue of sovereignty, rather than debating issues that we have debated before. I say that with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, but we have already covered a huge amount of this ground.

Lord Neill of Bladen: It is a difficult judgement as to whether one should intervene in someone else's amendment on which a lot of argument was going on or whether one should keep one's powder and shot for an amendment for which I have actually put my name to. I naturally thought should I get up and interrupt and in the end I decided not to. I may have got that wrong. Essentially I think it is important we should not be too insular in these matters and that we should be aware of how other countries deal with these questions and in particular their stress on the need for the court to remain strictly within its jurisdiction.
	In view of the lateness of the hour and what the noble Lord has said, I suppose I should spare you what the position is in Poland. Essentially the Poles have said that the national law is supreme, that there is a limitation on the powers of the EUexactly the same point as the Germansand that they reserve the right to consider the clash that might arise if some provision in the constitution was in conflict with Community law or a Community decision. They look at the possibilities that might be persuading the EU to alter their ruling, amending their own constitution or leaving the EU. None of this is challenging the basic position, which we were discussing before dinner, of the sovereignty of the EU court in so far as it decides things within its remit.
	If we look at the position in English law, the general conventional wisdom is that the 1972 Act could be repealed by a straightforward Act saying that that was the will of Parliament. It is a little less clear what the position would be in relation to some particular doctrine or part of European law. Could we single that out and do so in clear language that was not to form part of English law? Lord Denning looked at that in the passage cited by Lord Waddington, in which he discussed what would happen if the time comes when Parliament passes an Act repudiating the treaty or any provision in it. He went on:
	I should have thought it would be the duty of Parliament to give effect to it.
	Lord Justice Laws in the Thorburn case, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that,
	In the event, which no doubt would never happen in the real world, that a European measure was seen to be repugnant to a fundamental or constitutional right guaranteed by the law of England, a question would arise whether the general words of the 1972 Act were sufficient to incorporate the measure and give it overriding effect in domestic law. But that is very far from this case.
	He does not say what the answer would be if that situation did arise and he is not looking at the issue which I flagged up for your Lordships; that is, what happens if the EU measure in question is outside the four corners of the treaty or that the ECJ gives a judgement in an area which is not committed to?
	We have had a lot of discussion about the Lisbon treaty. I have referred to the foreign policy borderlinedetails are in paragraph 4.176 of the committee's impact report. Other problems are referred to in part 7 in paragraph 7.50, where there is a reference to Article 39 and the fact that the ECJ has no jurisdiction whatever in that area. I am putting into your Lordships' minds the thought that we could get situations where it was unclear and there could be a debate whether a law, regulation or directive made by one of the organs of the EU, or whether a judgment of the ECJ, was within the limits of its jurisdiction. In that case, I think that it would be open to challenge in this Parliament and an Act could be passed expressly disclaiming part of the new instrument or the decision by the court. The nuclear option, of course, is to give notice, as has been suggested, under the provisions in the Act.
	I support the amendment on the basis that it would be important to the public to know that the Lisbon treaty had been incorporated; otherwise, they will know nothing. The earlier debate this evening has shown the level of knowledge about EU law. Almost nothing is known by the general public about what is being done in their name, but there would be some satisfaction in having a clause which said that Parliament retained its full sovereignty to repeal the Act.

Baroness Ludford: I want to return to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in moving the amendment. He said that one party would pledge to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty if it was ratified. Am I correct in thinking that he was implying that it would be the Conservative Party? If so, perhaps I may address a question to the Conservative Front Bench and ask the noble Lords, Lord Howell or Lord Hunt, whether they agree that it is Conservative policy to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty. I think that the Committee would be interested to know whether that is the case.
	I also wanted to go back briefly to what I believe is the substance of the amendment.

Lord Waddington: Is the noble Baroness asking me a question? If she is, I can answer it briefly. This debate will go on for ever if we open up the question of who might be elected and what they might do. I am simply saying that if, having been elected, a Government felt that they had a mandate to renegotiate, it would be very important to have an amendment such as this one on the statute book to make a reality of that renegotiation. That is all I am saying.

Baroness Ludford: That still leaves me with the question of what is meant by having a mandate to renegotiate, and I should be interested in having an answer to that. I wanted to go back to what I believe is the substance of the amendmentthat is, the supremacy of Parliament. It seems to me that, after getting on for three hours of debate on these issues, it is absolutely clear. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill suggested that a first-year law student would know the answerthat the UK Parliament is indeed supreme. It can repeal the European Communities Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, there is now a specific provision in the treaty on withdrawal. Therefore, it is utterly clear that the UK Parliament is supreme. It can decide to repeal the European Communities Act, but that would mean that we would no longer be in the EU. There is no third way.

Lord Waddington: The noble Baroness completely misses the point. The point is whether the European Communities Act could be disapplied in a particular case. That is what we are arguing about. It may be right or it may be wrong, but that is the point that we are arguing about. If in a statute we said in clear words that we wanted to do a particular thing, notwithstanding the European Communities Act, would that be good law? That is what we are talking about, but the noble Baroness is labouring on about an entirely different point.

Baroness Ludford: I was about to go on to say that there is no third way. You are either in the European Union or you are not. If you are in the European Union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said earlier, you have to apply the rules of the club; otherwise, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said earlier, there will be chaos and anarchy. This is a club in which there is the rule of law. Of course, we can defy the European Court of Justice but that would be incompatible with membership. Ultimately, we would be found to be in infringement of the EU treaties, and either by our courts or the ECJ incompatible legislation would be struck down. Therefore, while we are in the European Union we have to respect the primacy of EU law. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that he was not advocating leaving the EU butI am sorry but I have to repeat thisthere is no third option. You are in and respect the rulesand ultimately can be found in breach either by our courts or the Luxembourg courtor you exercise the absolute right of Parliament, which is supreme, to leave the EU by repealing the European Communities Act and then we are no longer subject to the rules of the EU. After several hours of debate, the attempt to try and find some other option simply is not there. It is clutching at straws. It does not exist.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Could I just clear up one point? Again, I think it is important to be clear about it. Ever since the nineteenth century and Professor Dicey, it has been absolutely clear that under the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament cannot bind its successors, in the senseas Dicey pointed outthat even the Act of Union with Scotland could be trumped by a subsequent Dentist's Act if that Act were to contain something that was clearly inconsistent.
	Therefore, it is clear that under the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as stated by the courtsbecause the whole thing depends upon the common law recognition of parliamentary sovereignty by the courtsif a Westminster Parliament were to decide to pass legislation overriding the 1972 Act, it could do so, in so far as English domestic constitutional law was concerned. However, it could not do so in a way that would be legally valid. If we are members of the European Union, to pass legislation that was incompatible with the supreme law of the European Union would mean English courts would be compelled to hold the subsequent statute inconsistent with Community law and to disapply it. This is because English courts are under an obligation in the 1972 Actand under a directly binding European lawto read and give effect to every British statute in a way that is compatible with binding Community law. With this problem, there is a difference when it is looked at as an isolated English constitutional problem and when it is looked at in terms of our membership of the EU. So long as we are within the European Union, there is no possibility whatever of a subsequent statute breaching Community law, being struck down or disapplied by our own courts and, ultimately, by the Court of Justice. That is the fundamental principle on which our membership of the European Community is based. It is for that reason that amendments of this kind, were they to be carried, would be necessarily held to be invalid.
	Lord Justice Laws, a fine judge, floated in one of his judgments in the Court of Appealto take Dicey's examplethe supposition that Parliament were to be dotty enough, or the European institutions were dotty enough, to enact legislation requiring that all red-headed people should be boiled alive at birth. The question of parliamentary sovereignty and European Community law, in that kind of extreme hypothetical flat-earth case, could then arise. John Laws was indicating that, in that extreme case, there might be some possibility of litigation on that subject. Frankly, it is not really sensible to spend time on examples of that kind, floated by a distinguished Court of Appeal judge in a hypothetical way.

Lord Howell of Guildford: That is another legal gem to add to our wisdom this evening. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I say to the noble Baroness that it is inevitableI know that your Lordships want to move on as quickly as possiblethat there is some overlap between the last debate on the scope, jurisdiction and power of the European Court of Justicewhich more or less put down firmly to a subordinate position the supremacy of Parliament in relation to laws already passedand the question of the supremacy of Parliament now and to what extent it is affected by any future areas of expansion in the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is a perfectly legitimate sequential pattern to follow between the two debates and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, was right to argue as he did.
	I found the last debate and this debate enormously stimulating. Listening to the views of our great legal luminaries and the learned Justice was like dipping into a cool, refreshing stream. They established beyond peradventure that, although my noble friend Lord Waddington may not be too happy about itincidentally, it is a marvellous privilege to follow his rumbustious introductionshort of unlocking and trying to change the 1972 Act, the European Court of Justice is absolutely supreme in areas where it reigns. It is paramount. As Lord Justice Bingham said, it has a panoramic view and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, it is a supreme constitutional court. There is no doubt about that. Although I know that some of my noble and honourable friends and many people in this country would like it not to be so, it is so. The fact of the matter is that, in the areas where the European Court of Justice prevails and reignswhere its writ runsit is supreme and parliamentary sovereignty has been subordinated to it.
	Also relevant to this debate is the argument that we had earlier about whether that writ can be extended and whether it applies to matters where there appears to be a constitutional conflict between the Court of Justice and what we believe to be our own constitutional rights and values. We look to other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, rightly did, and see that they have constitutional safeguards in their courts and so on, whereas we have our own safeguards, which are of a different kind. Sometimes we wonder whether, at the parliamentary level, they could be reinforced. Perhaps in the future they can be. However, it is clearly established that the ECJ is supreme where its writ runs.
	A perfectly legitimate question remains hanging in the air. Although my noble friend Lord Waddington may not want to be at the centre of the debate, the question is this: if we agree to this Lisbon treaty Bill, to what extent are we extending the areas in which the writ runs and the ECJ's law is supreme? That is a legitimate area of debate. We have established that the Court of Justice has supreme authority over a large area, but to what extent do we want to extend that? Extend it the Bill does and extend it the treaty does. No one denies the fact that the ECJ acquires, by the collapse of the Third Pillar and the movement of judicial and home affairs and even some aspects of foreign policy into the Union proper, new areas in which to reign. We have an absolutely legitimate query about the extent to which its writ should be extended.

Lord Roper: Can the noble Lord tell us which parts of foreign policy are being moved into the First Pillar?

Lord Howell of Guildford: In an earlier debate, I read out 11 areas where CFSP is affected by veto changes. I will supply those to the noble Lord, but I will not go through them again now, as I know that there is tremendous pressure on time. Perhaps not all these areas will be directly affected, but the influence will certainly be there. The question also arises whether an individual case brought to the European Court of Justice arising from CFSP provisions is justiciable. The Government tried under the convention to have that clarified, but failed to do so. We have discussed that in great detail. I greatly respect the noble Lord, but we have a time constraint and I must push on.
	The point of all this is that, if the ECJ is the supreme courtand, indeed, the supreme constitutional courtthat knocks a hole into all the arguments about the charter and the red lines. None of those things is invulnerable to the supremacy of the European Court of Justice, as been made so beautifully clear by the distinguished legal luminaries in the Committee tonight.
	The noble Baroness said that the member states make laws. It is the Council that makes the lawssometimes unanimously, sometimes without the veto. We are left with the fact that the principle of ECJ supremacy is there; the principle of non-supremacy of the Parliament of this nation is there, but the question is, how far does the ECJ's writ extend? How far does the principle extend and how far do we want it to extend? Now that the proposition of the Bill is that Pillar 3 be collapsed into the Union, the extensionthe purviewof the ECJ would be extended further and the scope would be extended further. Is that what we want? I think not.
	When we look into the future people will say that we need to think very hard indeedI cannot go all the way with my noble friend. Constitutional safeguards similar to those in other countries are needed to ensure that in the future we do not find ourselves dragged further and further into a pattern of law and supremacy for which nobody in this country voted; many people do not want it and it is not healthy for the future of this nation or for Europe.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Let me begin by reiterating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for whom I have the highest respect. I hope he did not take offence at what I said. With such an interesting debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on the role of the German constitutional court, which I found so fascinating, I would have loved it to have ranged further and taken in other countries such as Denmark and Poland to which the noble Lord referred. I believe that I referred to France. It was in that spirit that I made my point. It is often frustrating when you wish to be brief from the Front Bench if you can see the opportunity to reiterate much of what you have said before for the benefit of noble Lords who had not participated. I apologise if I caused any offenceit was not meant.
	In a way this is a simple proposition which relies on the position that noble Lords take on Europe and the current treaty. Those noble Lords who believe we should not be in Europe at alland their view is perfectly formedwill take great exception to the suggestion that some court outside the UK should have jurisdiction. Those who wish us to have a kind of halfway house in our relationship with Europe will equally wish to put in caveats to make sure that if there is a bit of law that they do not quite fancy on day two, they can prevent the UK being subject to it.
	I go back to what I have said during all our deliberations. When we signed up to this proposition, the European Court of Justice already existed and the primacy of European Union law was a well established principle. Noble Lords may argue that we should not have done it, that we should not do it now and that we should get out of it, which is a completely reasonable position. But that is where we are and I will not hide behind dancing on the head of a pin as to what is what.
	The Council of Ministers is made up of the member states. It is no good saying that the Council and not the member states makes the law, because the Council is made up of the member states. I have sat on the Council of Justice Ministers. I was there with a badge which said, UK Government. I gave my contributions, voted and made my decisions on that basis. I represented this Government, this country and its best interests throughout, as did all of the other colleagues around the table, representing the 27 member states.
	I am under no illusion about what I was doing. I was a representative of a member state moving to make better law. I believed that what I was doing was in the best interests of the citizens of this country. I have described civil justice as an important element. If people are to live, work, study, travel, buy or sell in the European Union they need a civil law backdrop that makes sure they are well protected in those transactions, whatever they be. That is fundamental.
	In the determination of that civil law, where we have made the law, the European Union Court of Justice interprets for all of us to make sure that each member state does what it says on the tin. Each of them enacts the law as it has been written. I am also under no illusion that that comes from the supremacy of this Parliament in signing up to the 1972 Act and all that went with it.
	At the end of the day, this Parliament will decide whether we repeal that Act or stay within the European Union. That is the fundamental point of this amendment and for me a very simple point. While we are part of the European Union, the European Court of Justice has a role and responsibility. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hunt of Wirral, have made it perfectly clear that they do not like the Third Pillar collapsing into the First Pillar. They do not seem to recognise the importance and relevance of the opt-ins that have been proposed. We will debate this furtherand I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will be able to put forward his case.
	In the context of the negotiations that have gone on around the Lisbon treaty, the UK is in a strong and good positionwe want to be part of the European Union. In justice and home affairs, collaboration with our European partners is central to many of the things that we want to achieveon serious and organised crime, terrorism, asylum and all sorts of issues and matters to do with collaboration and co-operation. We must look at the rub between what we are doing in Europe and in a domestic scenario and ensure that, when we sign up to it and opt in, it is in our best interests. Noble Lords will know that on some occasions on civil justice I opted in and on some occasions I did not. All those decisions were made on the basis of what I believed and my colleagues, more importantly, believed, were in the best interests of the UK. That will continue.
	Part of what is factored in will be a recognition that the European Court of Justice will have a say in determining what the rules are and how they are applied. That is one of many factors that the UK Government will take into account, but it is just one. It is an important one, however, and part and parcel of what this treaty does. Noble Lords may decide that they do not like this and if they were on this side of the House they would renegotiate. Well, this has been a long negotiation, which started a great many years ago; it is time to move on from institutional reform and get on with the business of what being part of the European Union is for and tackle some of the long-term and difficult objectives that we all have.
	In the context of the amendments, the role of Parliament is clear. It has the capacity to repeal the 1972 Act and to make that determination. That in my view is the answer to the amendment and on that basis, the noble Lord should withdraw it.

Lord Waddington: This has been an interesting debateI do not think that anybody can deny thatand I am very grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. Thank you all very much indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]

Lord Haskel: I cannot call Amendment No. 124 as it is an amendment to Amendment No. 123.

[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]

Lord Haskel: I cannot call Amendment No. 126 as it is an amendment to Amendment No. 125.

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: moved Amendment No. 128:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause
	Deployment of European Gendarmerie Force: parliamentary approval
	Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring the United Kingdom Government to permit the deployment of the European Gendarmerie Force in the United Kingdom without the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: We come to three separate amendments, which look further into the future that may arise from the treaty and our membership of the European Union. Amendment No. 128 looks at the EU gendarmerie force. In Amendment No. 129 we look at xenophobia and in Amendment No. 130 we look at the question of the EU having powers over direct taxation.
	I fear that some of your Lordships may not be fully au fait with the EU gendarmerie force. What is it? By way of answering that question, I tabled a Written Question on 19 February 2007, in which I asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the proposed strength of the European Gendarmerie Force; what is its intended purpose; how is it being financed; and how much will it cost?
	The Minister replied:
	The European Gendarmerie Force ... is an initiative of five ... member states (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain). The UK is not a member of the EGF and therefore does not have detailed information about the force. I understand that the purpose of the EGF is to make available rapidly deployable paramilitary police units able to perform a variety of policing roles, primarily in support of EU crisis management operations. It has a permanent headquarters ... of 30 staff based at the Centre of Excellence for Stability Police Units, in Vicenza, Italy. The HQ consists of a multinational core that can be reinforced as needed by agreement of the contributing states.[Official Report, 19/2/07; col. WA 179.]
	This is, then, a body set up to deal with EU crisis management operations, and I submit that we must think: what are those likely to be? Friends of minein the UK Independence Party and others, in Brusselstried to find out. They went to Vicenza, where I have to tell your Lordships that they were not all that well received.

Noble Lords: Ha!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps that was not surprising, so, on 4 February this year I tabled another Question, because a rumour was going around that this wonderful new European military police force was going to be deployed in 2012 in this country, at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Noble Lords: Ha!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Well, one point about the European Union is that whenever we hear of a plan that it appears to be hatching, one always thinks, That's so absurd: it couldn't possibly happen. It wouldn't dare do that, would it?. We thought that about corpus juris, social policy and many things, yet history has shown that it always dares to do it.
	If I may continue, then, without ridicule from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I will reveal to the Committee that on 4 February I asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the European ... Gendarmerie Force will assist with the 2012 Olympic Games in the United Kingdom; and what role they foresee for this force in the United Kingdom.
	I received an Answer from the Government, in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, which read:
	The Government have not received any proposals on the use of non-UK police forces in support of security of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We will consider any such proposals carefully.
	In government-speak that, as we all know, means, We think that it may happen. His reply continued:
	Policing in the UK is carried out with the consent and co-operation of the community
	but which community? Then:
	We would not want to interfere with these long-established policing traditions of which we are justly proud.[Official Report, 4/2/08; col. WA 157.]
	It must be said that the EGF, if I may refer to it as such to spare the Committee my deplorable French, was not validated until 8 October 2007 under the treaty of Velsenthe same day that the Lisbon treaty was signed, as it turned out. In that treaty, the EGF is allowed to recruit from candidate countries, and I understand that Turkey is particularly interested in joining in.
	Can this thing be used here, and are the Government thinking of allowing the EGF in? Of course, it is quite a clever arrangement; I have given the Committee the countries that make it up, and in that sense it resembles the Farnborough agreement to which I referred on defence matters. It is just a few countries, but it can easily be turned into an EU initiative.

Lord Bach: In what possible way is this equivalent to what the noble Lord knows as the Farnborough agreement, which I know as the LOI agreement? These are quite different countries. How can he say it is in any way a parallel?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord is being unusually obtuse. The Farnborough agreement is made up of five or six EU nations that have clubbed together to pool their defence procurement, but can be turned into an EU initiative. In fact, it now concerns most of EU procurement, as the noble Lord himself said the other evening. This initiative is also an agreement between a few EU countries but, as I shall show, it can be turned into an EU initiative at the flick of a switch. My submission is that it will be. Indeed, the EGF is training

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Having regard to the number of Turkish drug smugglers who are convicted in this country, would it not be a good idea to have some Turkish bobbies on the beat?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I would not mind if decent Turkish citizens became British bobbies on the beat here. I would be somewhat more worried if Turkish citizens of perhaps a less salubrious kind were to be employed by the organisation I am describing, about which I wish to ask the Government some questions.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The hour is late, and I hesitate to suggest that the noble Lord is wasting police time, but that is what he is doing. This body is designed, as he read out, for crisis management outside the European Union. If he had any familiarity with the mounting of peacekeeping operations and conflict prevention, he would know that there is an increasing requirement in such operations for gendarmerie-type police. They exist in some member states, but do not exist in this country and a number of others. Therefore the countries that have them are prepared to get together, pool them and put them at the disposal of the United Nations or the European Union for peacekeeping operations, where they are extremely valuable and important. They are not for deployment within the European Union to other member states. We can go on with these fantasies, I suppose, all night if necessary, but it might be better to consign them to our pillows where such fantasies can become nightmares. Really and truly, this is not a serious subject.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord is very generous, but can he tell me where in the arrangements of the EGF it is not allowed to operate within the EU? I give the Government's Answer againthat it will be,
	primarily in support of EU crisis management operations.[Official Report, 19/2/07; col. WA179.]

Lord Roper: Can the noble Lord tell me where in any EU document the words crisis management are ever used for activities within the EU? If we look at the Petersberg tasks and the development of the ESDP, the words crisis management are always used in external activities rather than internal ones.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Noble and Europhile Lords must tell me why these operations could not be internal to the European Union. There is nothing

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: That is a when did you stop beating your wife? argument. Can we please not have that sort of argument? The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has explained, and I have tried to explain, politely, the purpose of this instrument. It is a perfectly legitimate: it is for dealing with the activities that the European Union undertakes in the form of conflict prevention and peacekeeping operations outside the European Union. There are no provisions in any of the treaties for conducting such operations within the European Union. It is considered unthinkable that they should ever arise. You cannot turn negatives into positives in a vacuum. It really would be wiser if the noble Lord would, at this very late hour, ask the Minister to reply briefly and then withdraw his amendment because we are wasting time.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I have no intention of doing that because Europhile noble Lords, as usual, are saying that this EU initiative could not turn into what one fears it could. I do not accept that and I quote one obvious instance. The control of civil contingencies in the European Union passed to Brussels last December under Article 308 of the present treaty of Nice. When I withdrew my amendment earlier today, I hope I indicatedperhaps I did notthat I would return to it on this amendment. Whether Europhile noble Lords like it or not, the control of civil contingencies, which is clearly in the European Union

A noble Lord: It means crisis management.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Not at all, absolutely not. If the noble Lord cares to read the House of Commons report on the use of Article 308, he will find that it applies to foreign crisis management, but is also applicable in this country and the European Union. This clause, Article 308, which was in the 1957 Act, and which allowed the Common Market, as it then was, to make minor adjustments to tariffs and so on, said that it could only be used in the course of the operation of the Common Market. This clause, with the support of the Luxembourg court, was used, among many other initiatives, to pass the control of civil contingencies to Brussels. Those civil contingencies clearly include civil contingencies in this country. There is no exception to them.

Lord Roper: I have heard very clearly what the noble Lord has said. Civil contingencies are one thing. In any of that legislation, do the words crisis management appear? My feeling is that they do not. Crisis management appears in the original Petersberg tasks, which were in the Maastricht treaty, only in the context of the use of forces in crisis management, and in subsequent CFSP matters. The noble Lord will have to strain very hard to find the words crisis management ever used for activities within the European Union.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord does not have to strain very hard because, if Europhile noble Lords will permit, I am about to ask Her Majesty's Government what, if any, is the connection between crisis management and civil contingencies. I ask the Government: what is going on with this EU gendarmerie force? Can the Minister assure us that it will never be used to put down civil contingencies or for crisis managementor however the Petersberg tasks wish to describe itin this country? Can the Minister give an unequivocal guarantee that the EU gendarmerie force will not be deployed in this country without parliamentary consent? Can he assure us that it will not be used, as is widely feared in Brussels and elsewhere, for instance, in the 2012 Olympic Games?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It is simply not feared widely in Brussels. I have read a great many documents on the EU gendarmerie force. Much of this is in the public domain. It started with civilian police operations in the western Balkans, to which the British made some contributions, usually from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This has been used. There have been some operations in which civil police have operated in other European countries. British police, the noble Lord has no doubt not appreciated, walked in uniform on German soil during the last World Cup. It may well be that, during the British Olympics, police from other countries do the same here as a useful means of dealing with international crowds. That is entirely different from the delicate conspiracy theory of foreign takeover of Britain that the noble Lord is attempting to build.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I would have preferred to get that answer from Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support my noble friend Lord Pearson. I do not think that the strictures from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are correct. This is an EU force, which, as my noble friend said, is training in Vicenza. It is not a civil, nice, friendly bobby police force, but riot police. I know that I am not allowed to produce photographs or anything else as hard evidence in your Lordships' House, but I can describe a photograph of helmeted, shielded, gas-masked, armed police training in Vicenza, with EU flashes on their shoulders. They are obviously acting in an EU capacity. Why, therefore, should they not at some point be deployed within the European Union?
	On the Olympic Games, recently, in London, we had unfortunate demonstrations when some Chinese goons in rather unfortunate track suits were guarding the flame. Under what authority were they deployed? No one seems to have answered that question. I think that they even manhandled the noble Lord, Lord Coe, who is in charge of our Olympics. If the Government are happy to have Chinese goons guarding the Olympic flame this year, will they have the EGF in any role in the future, whether at the Olympic Games or in any other capacity? Whether it might be for friendly matters at football matches, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, I do not know, but these are not friendly bobbies with whistles around their necks. They are an armed and gas-masked European Gendarmerie Force.

A noble Lord: And jack-booted.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: The noble Lord is right and after this debate I will give him a photograph of the EGF, if he would like that, and he will see that it is booted. I support my noble friend's amendment and I look forward to hearing from the Government Front Bench.

Lord Bach: Amendment No. 128 would insert a new clause requiring UK parliamentary approval prior to the deployment of the European Gendarmerie Force in the United Kingdom. I was asked to distinguish between civil contingencies and crisis management by way of examples. Civil contingencies might be flooding or some natural disaster. Crisis management could involve the collapse of a state, such as Kosovo some years ago. The difference could hardly be greater.
	The latest recruit to the noble Lord's party, the honourable Mr Spink, asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs a Question on whether he,
	will make representations to those governments contributing to the European Gendarmerie Force that it should not be deployed on the territory of another member state of the European Union.
	My honourable friend said:
	The European Gendarmerie Force ... is not an EU proposal or agency. The primary purpose of the EGF is to assist in crisis management operations in post-conflict situations and it is therefore extremely unlikely to deploy in an EU country. Deployment of the force is a matter between the governments contributing to the EGF and the requesting state in need of assistance.[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/08; col. 93W.]
	I was asked whether Article 352 would be used to establish a European Gendarmerie Force. Perhaps I may interrupt myself to say that Members of the Committee talked about an EU gendarmerie force, which it is not. It is the European Gendarmerie Force and has nothing to do with the European Union.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Then why is it bedecked in the European flag?

Lord Bach: I have no idea, but it is nothing to do with the European Union.
	The question posed was whether Article 352 could be used to establish the European Gendarmerie Force and could the force operate in the United Kingdom. Article 308, to which the noble Lord referred, allows the Union to take action in pursuit of a Union objective where there is no specific legal base but any action would have to be agreed by unanimitythat is, we would have a veto. But that position would not arise because the European Gendarmerie Force is nothing to do with the European Union. There is no suggestion that it should be brought within the framework of the European Union using Article 352 or otherwise. In any event, it can operate only with the consent of the state concerned. So if the fear is that the EGF could operate in the UK, it could only do so if we asked it to.
	The United Kingdom does not participate in the European Gendarmerie Force. It is an initiative of France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Its purpose is to assist the international community in dealing with states in crisis situations. The EGF can only be deployed in agreement with the state in question. In short, the EGF has nothing to do with the EU, nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty and nothing to do with this Bill.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Is there, therefore, any reason why the noble Lord cannot accept the amendment? If he cannot accept the amendment, is he giving an unequivocal guaranteeit is reasonable to ask this question before I decide what to do with the amendmenton behalf of the Government that this force will not be used in this country without the consent of Parliament?

Lord Bach: The issue does not arise.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Then why does not the Minister just say no?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Why does he not just say yes?

Lord Bach: I think it is time for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment so that we can either go home or move on.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether we are going home. I am ready to move on to Xenophobia, which is even more interesting. But were we not to move on to Xenophobia, I think Hansard will bear me out that the Government have said that my fears about the EU Gendarmerie Force are completely unfounded. I very much hope that they have not given a hostage to fortune. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I would like to go on to Xenophobia but as tomorrow is Thursday the House needs to rise by 11 pm. I regret that it will not be possible to move on this evening unless the noble Lord can give an assurance that he will speak briefly, that my noble friend will be able to respond and that we will finish by 11 pm.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I would like to give that assurance but, as I have discovered in these proceedings, if one puts the smallest match to the dry hillside of Europhiliac fury, I cannot guarantee that even if I move the amendment very brieflyit will take me about four minuteswe will not be here until 1 o'clock before we finish with Xenophobia. In those circumstances it may well be time to draw stumps.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: In that case, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10.49 pm